oftfje 

®mbers(itpofi9ortf)Carolma 


tirije  Sociological  ILihvatv 

of 

jftanfelin  ^.  (gibbingjf 

Columbia  ^nibetsfitp 


THE  LIBRARY  OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF 

NORTH  CAROLINA 


ENDOWED  BY  THE 

DIALECTIC  AND  PHILANTHROPIC 

SOCIETIES 


HE385 
.0  5 


ifgiiii 


This  book  is  due  at  the  WALTER  R.  DAVIS  LIBRARY  c 
the  last  date  stamped  under  "Date  Due."  If  not  on  hold 
may  be  renewed  by  bringing  it  to  the  library. 

^'^^^                           RET 
DUE                             "^^• 

DATE 

DUE                             ^^ 

MAH  1 

■  J 

JAM  n  ^ 

^nnn 

mi 

ZUU9 

,^_.^  JUw 

1  i  Im^ 

«M| 

Form  No.  513. 
Rev.  1/34 

Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2010  with  funding  from 

University  of  North  Carolina  at  Chapel  Hill 


http://www.archive.org/details/internationalwatOOogil 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS 


•■"^^^wi 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

UBW  YORK  •    BOSTON  •   CHICAGO  •  DALLAS 
ATLANTA  •   SAN  FRANCISCO 

MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  Limited 

LONDON  •  BOMBAY  •  CALCUTTA 
MELBOURNE 

THE  MACMILLAN  CO.  OF  CANADA,  Ltd. 

TORONTO 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS 


THE  EVOLUTION  OF  THE  PRINCIPLE  OF  INTERNATIONAL 
WATERWAYS 

II 

A  REFERENCE-MANUAL  TO  THE  TREATIES,  CONVENTIONS, 

LAWS,  AND  OTHER  FUNDAMENTAL  ACTS  GOVERNING 

THE  INTERNATIONAL  USE  OF  INLAND  WATERWAYS 


BY 

PAUL  MORGAN  OGILVIE,  M.A. 


SUBMITTED  IN  PARTIAL  FULFILLMENT  OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS 
FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY,  IN  THE 
FACULTY     OF    POLITICAL     SCIENCE,     COLUMBIA     UNIVERSITY 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 
1920 

±11  rights  reserved 


Copyright,  1920, 
Bv  PAUL  MORGAN  OGILVIE 


Set  up  and  eIectroty]jed.      Published,  February,  1920 


IN   THE  MEMORY  OF 

JAMES  OGILVIE 

A  PIONEER  OF 
UNFALTERING  FAITH 


cr 

cr 


PKEFACE 

One  hundred  and  four  years  ago,  when  the  representatives 
of  the  diverse  nations  of  Europe,  assembled  at  the  Congress  of 
Vienna,  were,  in  conformity  with  the  stipulations  of  the  Treaty 
of  Paris,  instituting  the  principle  of  the  universal  navigation 
of  inland  waterways,  even  those  entertaining  the  most  sanguine 
expectations  could  not  have  foreseen  the  decisive  part  which 
this  innovation  was  destined  to  play  in  the  development  of  trans- 
portation during  the  ensuing  century  on  the  waterways  even  of 
distant  continents.  In  1815  the  mechanical  propulsion  of 
vessels,  which  constitutes  a  most  vital  element  in  the  utilization 
of  the  highways  of  inland  waters,  had  not  been  sufficiently  per- 
fected to  disclose  its  limitless  possibilities  in  the  improvement 
of  international  communication  and  the  development  of  the 
world-wide  commercial  and  industrial  activities  of  the  ]S[ine- 
teenth  Century. 

In  fulfillment  of  the  aspiration  "  to  facilitate  the  communi- 
cation between  nations,  and  continually  to  render  them  less 
strangers  to  each  other,"  as  proclaimed  by  the  Peace  of  Paris  in 
1814,  the  nations  of  the  world,  through  the  adoption  of  the 
principle  of  free  navigation,  have  facilitated  international  com- 
merce and  have  demonstrated  what  may  be  attained  through  ef- 
fective international  cooperation. 

By  providing  for  the  international  navigation  of  certain  Eu- 
ropean waterways,  in  the  treaties  with  Austria,  Germany  and? 
Poland,  the  Allied  and  Associated  Powers  at  the  Peace  Con- 
ference at  Paris  have  lately  evinced  an  enlightened  apprecia- 
tion of  the  benefit  to  be  derived  by  all  nations  from  securing 
the  most  ample  facilities  of  intercommunication.  These  treaty 
provisions,  which  are  summarized  at  the  conclusion  of  the  Kef- 
erence-Manual,  will  become  operative  upon  the  establishment 


PREFACE 

of  peace  with  the  deposit  of  formal  ratifications.  Several  in- 
land states  which  would  otherwise  be  isolated  are  assured  of 
free  transit  over  inland  waters  to  the  open  sea  by  virtue  of  the 
Treaties  of  Versailles  and  Saint  Germain-en-Laye. 

These  fluvial  rights  may  be  extended  into  the  space  directly 
above,  so  that,  with  the  progressive  improvement  of  aerial 
transportation,  such  inland  water-courses  may  serve,  collater- 
ally, as  routes  of  International  Airways.  Air-vessels  of  an 
inland  state  might  be  denied  transit  over  the  terrestrial  domain 
of  adjacent  nations,  yet,  if  the  state  were  situated  on  an  inter- 
national waterway,  as  Austria  is  situated  on  the  Danube,  air- 
vessels  might  follow  the  course  of  the  river  without  restraint. 

Substantial  alterations  in  the  boundaries  of  a  nation  may 
involve  a  greater  dependence  upon  an  international  waterway 
than  formerly.  Austria,  Czecho-Slovakia  and  Hungary  may 
divert  to  the  Danube  commerce  which  passed  through  Fiume 
and  Trieste  when  these  Adriatic  ports  were  comprised  within 
the  Dual  Monarchy.  An  inland  state  having  no  navigable  ac- 
cess to  the  sea  may  suffer  during  war  economic  restrictions 
which  may  jeopardize  its  supply  of  vital  commodities.  By  rea- 
son of  the  exigencies  of  the  World  War,  Switzerland,  though 
Jiaving  no  mercantile  marine,  chartered  merchant  vessels  from 
neutral  and  belligerent  countries,  obtaining  some  of  them  from 
Tthe  United  States  Shipping  Board.  In  accordance  with  ar- 
irangements  made  with  the  German  Government,  these  vessels 
were  granted  safe  conducts  on  condition  that  they  should  bear 
distinguishing  marks  indicating  the  fact  that  they  were  char- 
tered by  Switzerland  and  that  their  cargoes  were  destined  for 
that  country.  The  United  States  agreed  to  permit  the  Ship- 
3)ing  Board's  vessels  to  go  without  convoy,  provided  the  vessels 
iDore  such  marks.  Under  these  arrangements,  the  Swiss  flag 
-was  flown  from  the  foremast,  and  the  flag  of  the  country  where 
the  vessel  was  registered  was  displayed  from  the  mainmast. 
The  hull  of  the  ship  bore  the  Swiss  cross  and  the  word  Schweiz 
was  painted  in  large  letters  on  the  free-board.  Flying  two 
flags  in  this  manner,  it  might  be  said,  that  one  flag  testified 


PEEFACE 

to  the  national  character  of  the  vessel  and  the  other  to  the 
character  of  the  cargo. 

Changing  political  frontiers  and  the  persistent  progress  of 
engineering  science  may  terminate  at  any  time  the  isolation 
of  an  inland  state  by  affording  access  to  a  navigable  waterway 
communicating  with  the  open  sea.  In  consequence,  the  prin- 
ciple is  perennial  in  its  potentiality,  for  the  boundaries  of 
states  are  never  immutable  nor  are  the  limits  of  navigation  on 
inland  waters  ordinarily  permanent. 

Since  this  survey  seeks  especially  to  describe  the  evolution 
of  the  principle,  systematic  examination  of  the  physical  and 
political  conditions  warranting  universal  navigation  on  inland 
waters  and  consideration  of  the  ancillary  uses  which  appertain 
to  the  riparian  states,  exclusively,  is  reserved  for  discussion  in 
the  subsequent  treatise  concerning  International  Rights  on  In- 
la^id  Navigable  Waterways.  However,  conventional  arrange- 
ments and  laws  regulating  the  enjoyment  of  the  ancillary  uses, 
—  notably  participation  in  the  fluvial  and  lacustrine  fisheries 
and  the  diversion  of  waters  for  power,  irrigation,  and  the  main- 
tenance of  canals, —  together  with  the  agreements  governing 
navigation,  are  listed  alphabetically  and  chronologically  under 
the  diverse  continental  divisions  in  the  Eeference-Manual. 

In  acknowledgment  of  the  assistance  received  during  the 
pursuit  of  this  investigation,  I  tender  thanks  gratefully  to  Doc- 
tor Ellery  Stowell  whose  stimulating  enthusiasm  and  generous 
assistance  in  securing  desired  information  created  a  source  of 
inspiration  throughout  the  period  of  inception.  Likewise,  I 
am  under  obligation  to  the  Consular  Officers  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  stationed  in  Europe,  Asia,  Africa,  and 
South  America,  who  cheerfully  responded  to  difficult  requests 
for  information  not  readily  procurable  otherwise.  Eecogni- 
tion  would  be  incomplete  without  commending  the  exceptionally 
efficient  services  rendered  by  the  officers  and  assistants  at  the 
Columbia  University  Library,  the  Library  of  Congress,  and  the 
New  York  Public  Library.     Virtually  all  of  the  sources  cited 


PEEFACE 

will  be  found  available  for  reference  in  at  least  one  of  these 
bountiful  libraries. 

Any  expression  of  gratitude  and  enduring  indebtedness  must 
be  inadequate  in  appreciation  of  the  invigorating  and  salutar;y 
criticism  and  the  encouragement  of  the  constant,  kindly  counsel 
and  guidance  so  liberally  given  by  Professor  John  Basseti 
Moore. 

Paul  Morgai^  Ogilvie. 

Washington,  JTovember  tenth,  1919. 


CONTENTS 


PART  I 

THE  EVOLUTION  OF  THE  PRINCIPLE  OF  INTER- 
NATIONAL WATERWAYS 

CHAPTER  .,__  _.  ^*°^ 

I    The  Essential  Relation  of  Waterways  to  International 

Communication        3 

II    The  Advent  op  Maritime  Enterprise 13 

III  The  Institution  of  Maritime  Law 24 

IV  Discovery   Extends    Maritime   Enterprise   Throughout 

THE  Seven  Seas 42 

V    The  Sovereignty  of  the  Seas 53 

VI    The  Freedom  of  the  Seas 97 

VII    Exceptional  Limitations  on  the  Freedom  of  the  Seas  .  116 
Vin    The  Freedom  of  Navigation  on  Inland  Waterways    .     .  150 

PART  II 

A  REFERENCE-MANUAL  TO  THE  TREATIES,  CONVEN- 
TIONS, LAWS,  AND  OTHER  FUNDAMENTAL  ACTS  GOV- 
ERNING THE  INTERNATIONAL  USE  OF  INLAND 
WATERWAYS 

'  f.  ! 
I    Index   of   Abbreviations   Distinguishing   the   Principal 

Documentary  Collections 175 

II    The  International  Inland  Waterways  of  the  World  by 

Continental  Divisions 180 

Europe 180 

North  America 260 

Soutli  America 292 

Africa 322 

Asia,  Australia,  and  Islands  of  the  Sea 354 

Tentative    Provisions    Regulating    Certain    European 

Waterways 376 

Bibliography 381 

Index 391 


PAKT  I 

THE  EVOLUTION  OF  THE  PKINCIPLE  OE 
INTERNATIOi^AL  WATERWAYS 


INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS 

CHAPTEE  I 

THE    ESSEJ^TIAL    RELATION    OF    WATERWAYS    TO    INTERNATIONAL 
COMMUNICATION 

From  time  immemorial,  save  in  those  rare  intervals  when 
the  transitory  sea-power  of  certain  states  sought  maritime 
domination,  partial  or  complete,  the  narrow  seas  and  the  vast 
expanse  of  ocean  have  served  humanity  as  a  limitless  highway 
for  intercommunication. 

In  its  character,  the  sea  is  unique,  since  its  illimitable  ex- 
panse, comprising  three-fourths  of  the  earth's  surface,  remains 
an  effective  barrier  to  the  migration  and  commerce  of  man- 
kind between  the  islands  and  the  continents  which  it  surrounds, 
while  the  science  of  navigation  continues  unknown.  Once  this 
science  is  acquired,  forthwith,  the  sea  becomes  the  broad  high- 
way of  communication  between  the  nations  of  the  world,  con- 
necting the  sea-board  of  maritime  states,  and  the  ports  situated 
on  the  affluent  inland  waters,  with  remote  regions. 

Since  civilization  is  so  largely  a  matter  of  transportation, 
the  sea  must  be  recognized  as  a  dominant  factor  in  the  develop- 
ment of  nations,  for  it  provides  the  most  ample,  facile  and 
inexpensive  means  of  international  communication. 

Inventive  genius,  skill,  hardihood,  the  spirit  of  daring  and 
adventure  enjoy  abundant  reward  when  devoted  to  maritime 
enterprise.  With  respect  to  the  fisheries,  alone,  the  sea  has 
given  rich  harvest,  but  the  intrepid  mariners  who  have  dared 
to  venture  into  unknown  waters ;  who,  skirting  the  uncharted 
coasts  of  remote  lands,  have  discovered  new  and  richly  endowed 
regions ;  these,  together  with  their  countrymen,  have  merited 
and  have  been  accorded  still  greater  reward.     The  earliest  his- 


4  INTERNATIONAL,    WATERWAYS 

torical  records  chronicle  such  endeavors,  terminating  occasion- 
ally in  disaster  and  wretched  disappointment,  but  more  fre- 
quently culminating  in  brilliant  achievement.  Such  were  the 
famed  voyages  of  the  Phoenicians,  of  the  Greeks,  who  founded 
colonies, —  Magna  Grecia, —  far  to  the  westward,  of  the  Norse- 
men under  the  guidance  of  Lief  the  Lucky  and  Eric  the  Red; 
achievements  destined  to  sen^e  through  the  succeeding  centuries 
as  an  inspiration  to  mariners  throughout  the  world  to  embark 
upon  similar  endeavors  and  to  undertake  the  further  extension 
of  maritime  enterprise.  Eventually,  the  design  of  Columbus, 
accorded  a  tardy  opportunity,  brought  forth  in  triumph  the  new 
era  in  national  enterprise,  compelling  a  reorganization  of  poli- 
cies among  the  states  of  Europe. 

Man's  dominion  over  the  earth  b^an  with  his  earliest  ven- 
tures on  the  sea.  Whatever  force  compelled  this  experiment 
on  the  hitherto  unknown  element,  Whether  the  stress  of  hunger, 
or  the  incursion  of  hostile  and  stronger  tribes,  or  the  failure 
of  coastal  fisheries,  or  simply  an  active  curiosity,  seeking  to 
explore  the  distant  seacoast,  the  result  was  the  immediate  devel- 
opment of  greater  opportunities  for  man's  enterprise.  Through- 
out this  early  period  of  development,  as  in  more  recent  times, 
maritime  states,  because  of  the  inherent  advantages  of  their 
position  on  the  world's  great  highway,  won  and  maintained 
a  dominant  position  among  nations. 

Sea-trade,  which  eventually  became  synonymous  with  world- 
trade,  developed;  and,  as  an  indispensable  accompaniment,  a 
constantly  expanding  code  of  sea-law  evolved.  In  this  body 
of  law  a  fundamental  principle  was  the  essential  freedom  of 
the  open  sea  and  its  connecting  waters ;  a  principle  universally 
recognized  in  modern  times  although  limited  by  belligerent 
activities  to  a  degree  varying  with  the  scope  and  intensity  of 
hostilities.  In  the  period  of  intense  colonial  and  commercial 
rivalry  between  European  nations,  following  immediately  upon 
the  revolutionary  discoveries  in  the  latter  part  of  the  fifteenth 
century,  this  principle  was  flagrantly  violated.  Eour  centuries 
elapsed  before  its  complete  vindication,  when  it  was  recognized 


RELATION    TO    INTERNATIONAL,    COMMUNICATION  5 

that  discovery  beyond  the  seas,  the  common  enjoyment  of  the 
fisheries  by  all  maritime  nations,  the  facile  interchange  of  com- 
modities, is  resolved,  necessarily,  into  the  one  problem  of  main- 
taining the  freedom  of  navigation  on  the  high  seas  and  their 
connecting  waters.  In  the  words  of  Kent  (I  Commentaries 
27)  :  "  The  open  sea  is  pnblic  and  common  property  and  any 
nation  or  person  has  ordinarily  an  equal  right  to  navigate  it  or 
to  fish  therein," 

Furthermore,  in  accordance  with  the  liberal  spirit  of  the 
new  age,  an  extension  of  this  ancient  principle  was  enunciated 
almost  contemporaneously  with  the  restoration  of  freedom  on 
the  seas  (1806),  the  Congress  of  N"ations  at  Vienna  (1815) 
proclaiming  that  henceforth  the  inland  waterways  of  Europe 
separating  or  traversing  several  states  should  be  open  freely  to 
the  navigation  of  vessels  from  any  nation  whatsoever.  Hith- 
erto, freedom  of  navigation,  which  was  recognized  as  a  vital 
element  of  international  commerce,  had  been  concerned  solely 
with  the  open  sea,  but  the  Declaration  of  the  Congress  of  Vienna 
accorded  an  extension  to  this  familiar  principle,  which  was 
destined  to  bring  increasing  benefit  as  it  received  a  wider  appli- 
cation during  the  succeeding  decades.  Maritime  nations,  ex- 
hausted by  the  long-continued  struggle  for  domination  on  the 
seas,  had  come  to  realize  the  futility  of  the  struggle  and  were 
ready  to  accept  the  enlightened  principle  that  the  sea  belongs 
to  all,  for  common  benefit  and  enjoyment;  and,  furthermore, 
that  in  the  interest  of  international  economy  the  commercial 
navigation  of  arterial,  inland  waterways  should  be  assimilated 
to  that  of  the  high  seas. 

In  his  "  History  of  the  Greek  World  "  Herodotus  declares 
that  the  sea  is  a  road,  which  unites  the  peoples  of  the  earth  to 
each  other.  He  who  dwells  inland  is  as  one  shut  off  from  the 
facilities  and  attractions  of  human  intercourse  and  unacquainted 
with  the  progressive  growth  of  the  race.  Irrespective  of  the 
advent  and  extension  of  railroad  transportation,  the  development 
of  steam  navigation,  contemporaneously  with  the  enunciation 
and  application  of  the  principle  of  the  freedom  of  navigation 


6  INTERNATIONAL    WATERWAYS 

on  inland  waterways,  terminated  this  seclusion  of  inland  states. 
Henceforth,  those  dwelling  on  the  shores  of  inland  waterways, 
susceptible  of  internationalization,  were,  in  respect  to  commerce, 
virtually  situated  on  the  sea-coast.  Eeciprocally,  by  the  appli- 
cation of  the  Vienna  Declaration,  all  the  maritime  powers  of  the 
world  enjoy  an  extended  field  of  enterprise,  as  these  interna- 
tional waterways  render  easy  access  to  the  interiors  of  vast 
continents,  affording  passage  to  ocean  vessels  in  certain  instances 
three  thousand  miles  inland. 

Because  of  the  aggregate  number  of  new  trade  routes  which 
this  principle  has  developed,  omitting  all  consideration  of  those 
which  are  as  yet  prospective,  it  may  be  ranked  with  the  discovery 
of  the  New  World  and  of  the  sea-route  to  India  in  the  fifteenth 
century;  the  opening  of  the  Suez;  and  the  completion  of  the 
Panama  Canal,  in  its  profound  influence  upon  the  maritime 
enterprise  of  the  world. 

A  thorough  undei'standing  of  this  newly  acquired  right  to 
navigate  inland  waterways  demands  an  extensive  survey  of 
the  freedom  of  navigation  on  the  high  seas,  a  freedom  which 
suffered  serious  restriction  through  four  centuries,  its  ultimate 
affirmation  being  an  essential  precursor  to  the  enunciation  and 
acceptance  of  the  still  more  liberal  right.  Before  proceeding, 
however,  to  this  examination,  certain  economic  and  physical 
factors  inherent  in  water  transportation  should  be  noted,  as 
affording  an  explanation  of  the  importance  attached  to  mari- 
time affairs  in  every  epoch. 

The  importance  of  the  sea  and  of  the  connecting  or  tributary 
waters  arises  not  alone  from  the  fact  that  were  it  not  for  the 
science  of  navigation  many  regions  would  be  isolated,  the  sea 
constituting  a  barrier  rather  than  a  great  highway,  but  also  from 
certain  physical  peculiarities  which  accord  to  water  transporta- 
tion advantages  not  enjoyed  by  land  carriage.  The  advan- 
tages are  neither  accidental  nor  temporary  but  are  derived  from 
immutable  physical  laws.  The  fundamental  difference  exists 
in  the  fact  that  the  ocean  is  a  highway,  as  are  all  navigable 
waters,  over  which  a  given  burden  may  be  moved  with  one- 


RELATION    TO    INTERNATIONAL    COMMUNICATION  7 

sixth  tlie  expenditure  of  force  demanded  bj  the  most  facile  of 
all  forms  of  land  carriage,  railroad  transportation.     On  water- 
ways,   there   is   only  the   necessity   of  supplying  the   vehicle; 
whereas  on  land  the  highway  must  first  be  constructed  and 
thereafter  maintained  at  heavy  expense.     Whatever  form  of 
locomotive  power  renders  maximum  efficiency  in  land  carriage 
may  be  utilized  with  equal  facility  in  water  transportation.  ^ 
"  As  a  highway,  a  railroad  competes  in  vain  with  a  river ;  the 
greater  speed  cannot   compensate  for   the  smaller   carriage," 
declares    Admiral    Mahan.      ("Problems    of   Asia,"    pg.    Ss!) 
"  Water  traffic  for  equal  distances  is  much  cheaper,  being  more 
facile  and  more  copious,  and  therefore  more  useful  in  general." 
It  is  the  amount  of  goods  which  can  be  delivered  steadily 
over  a  long  period  of  time,  not  speed  of  delivery  alone  which 
is  the  important  consideration  in  the  exchange  of  commodities. 
An  unfortunate  limitation  of  railways  arises  from  the  fact 
that  the  carrying  capacity  reaches  an  unsurmountable  limit  as 
the  traffic   develops.     Moreover,   the  cost   of  maintenance   of 
way  and  of  the  rolling  stock  is  so  high  that  many  goods  can 
not  be  carried  at  a  profit.     A  nation,   situated  similarly  to 
Great  Britain  with  its  thirty-nine  hundred  miles  of  coast  waters, 
enjoys  the  most  commodious  of  all  highways. 

International  Water-Borne  Commerce.— It  is  owing  to 
this  ease  of  water  transportation  that  freight  seeks  sea  routes 
wherever  possible;  routes  which  aggregate  many  times  the 
length  of  land  routes,  since  from  any  sea,  and  from  many 
inland  waters,  all  seas  are  accessible.  International  com- 
merce, especially,  is  predominantly  sea  borne,  that  of  the  United 

1  Illustrating  the  low  cost  of  water  transportation,  these  figures  appeared 
in  the  "  Statistical  Abstract  of  the  United  States,  1915,"  page  306,  report- 
ing traffic  through  Sault  Sainte  Marie : 

1892  =  1.31   mills  per  ton  mile. 
1912=    .67      "        "       " 
1913=    .68      "        "       " 
1914=    .60      "        "       '« 
The  greatest  total  of  ton-mileage  was  65,330,716,791,  carried  in  1913. 
The  lowest  cost  per  ton-mile  in  the  history  of  the  Great  Lakes  traffic 
passing  through  St.  Ste.  Marie  was  six-tenths  of  a  mill,  charged  in  1914 


INTERNATIONAL    WATERWAYS 


States  being  nineteen-twentieths,  that  of  Great  Britain,  as  of 
all  insular  states,  being  entirely  sea  borne.  Consequently,  an 
enormous  saving  accrues  to  modem  society  where  the  right  of 
navigating  inland  waterways  is  accorded  foreign  ships,  per- 
mitting the  continuance  of  the  voyage  to  distant  river  or  lake 
ports,  thus  obviating  the  needless  expense  and  delay  of  trans- 
shipment at  the  sea  coast,  as  well  as  permitting  the  employ- 
ment of  this  least  expensive  mode  of  transportation  to,  or  in  the 
vicinity  of,  the  destination.  Such  an  opportunity  to  effect  sub- 
stantial savings  in  the  movement  of  goods  is  of  vital  importance 
to  modern  society,  its  existence  having  become  largely  a  ques- 
tion of  adequate  transportation.  Society  requires  the  inter- 
change of  an  ever-increasing  volume  of  goods,  and  for  this 
reason  the  perfection  and  amplification  of  means  of  access  to 
various  and  remote  regions  of  the  world  becomes  constantly  more 
imperative. 

The  articles  comprising  ocean  commerce  are  essential  to 
civilized  life;  in  fact,  even  savages  and  semi-civilized  races  are 
now  dependent  on  water-borne  commerce  for  many  commodities 
which  have  become  necessities  for  them.  So  it  is  that  com- 
merce is  necessary  for  the  life  of  nations  and  individuals,  inas- 
much as  commodities,  whether  of  essential  utility  or  merely 
enjoyable,  are  so  widely  distributed  over  the  earth.  The 
chronic  condition  of  the  Middle  Ages,  by  which  a  local  failure 
of  crops  meant  death,  no  longer  endures.  Modern  transporta- 
tion has  rendered  such  calamities  virtually  impossible.  The 
commodities  of  world  industry  pass  over  the  threshold  of  each 
nation  and  thence  over  seas  into  the  distant  markets  of  the 
world,  assuring  the  prosperity  and  well-being  of  all  who  par- 
take of  this  vital  commerce. 

Vattel  ("  Le  Droit  des  Gens,"  II,  sec.  21)  accords  great  im- 
portance to  the  service  of  international  commerce,  arguing  that 
"  men  are,  therefore,  under  an  obligation  to  carry  on  that  com- 
merce with  each  other,  if  they  wish  not  to  deviate  from  the 
views  of  nature;  and  this  obligation  extends  also  to  whole  na- 
tions or  states." 


RELATION    TO    INTEKNATIONAL    COMMUNICATION  » 

An  incidental  benefit  of  international  trade,  of  an  importance 
only  secondary,  arises  from  the  dissemination  of  civilization 
incident  upon  this  interchange.  Montesquieu  declares  in  the 
"  Spirit  of  Laws  "  that  the  history  of  commerce  is  that  of  the 
communication  of  peoples.  By  means  of  this  universal  com- 
merce over  the  waterways  of  the  world,  fostered  by  the  facility 
of  transport  upon  the  all-embracing  ocean,  the  former  isolation 
of  the  various  races,  because  of  geographical  limitations,  be- 
comes obliterated;  all  mankind  being  comprehended  in  this 
vast  interchange.  Opportunity  is  thus  afforded  for  the  growth 
of  commercial,  intellectual,  and  political  relations,  further  de- 
veloping the  social  instinct.  So,  the  expansion  of  sea-trade 
brought  knowledge  of  remote  regions,  and  as  commerce  extended 
over  this  ever-increasing  area,  developing  the  resources  of  new 
lands,  the  economies  of  single  nations  and  of  groups  of  nations 
became  united  in  one  world  economy.^ 

Maritime  Enterprise  Essential  to  Complete  National 
Development. —  The  vital  necessity  of  sea  communication  in 
the  life  of  nations  is  apparent  from  the  evidence  of  history. 
Throughout  the  ages,  those  nations  which  gained  political  prom- 
inence had  extensive  maritime  interests,  not  infrequently  ac- 
quired at  an  advanced  period  in  the  national  existence  through 
pressure  of  necessity.  Though  the  Egyptians  were  enabled  to 
continue  their  policy  of  national  seclusion  for  a  time,  yet  even- 
tually it  became  imperative  to  undertake  sea-faring.  Being  by 
nature  ill-adapted  for  such  an  enterprise,  the  services  of  a  sub- 
sidiary state,  Phoenicia,  were  enlisted  to  secure  the  success  of 
this  endeavor.  In  a  similar  manner,  Rome  secured  the  sup- 
port of  Masilla  (Marseilles).  These  instances  are  exceptional. 
Ordinarily  an  early  predilection  was  evinced  by  those  states 
which  later  were  destined  to  achieve  prominence  in  maritime 
affairs. 

1  Some  publicists  have  contended  that  through  this  intimate  knowledge 
of  one  nation  by  another,  resulting  from  freedom  of  commerce,  armed  con- 
flicts would  become  impossible;  the  intricate  community  of  interest  among 
all  nations  forbidding  such  resort  to  force.  Such  contentions  disregard 
the  profound  adverse  effect  of  conflicting  national  ambitions. 


10  INTERNATIONAl,    WATERWAYS 

Russia  has  long  recognized  the  urgent  necessity  of  reaching 
the  open  sea,  and  in  the  long-continued  struggle  to  gain  this 
objective,  has  encountered  the  active  hostility  of  certain  Euro- 
pean nations  which  have  feared  the  competition  of  the  vast 
Empire  once  it  should  acquire  adequate  communication  with 
the  world,  permitting  the  development  of  latent  resources  and 
industries.  The  vital  necessity  for  Russia  is  the  acquisition  of 
waterways  affording  unrestricted  communication  between  the 
Empire  and  every  maritime  nation,  for  it  is  apparent  that  the 
development  of  railways  has  afforded  inadequate  relief.  Eor 
centuries  this  need  has  been  manifest.  Though  essentially  in- 
land in  origin,  Russia,  through  unremitting  efforts,  has  ad- 
vanced with  the  conscious  purpose  of  gaining  the  shore  of  the 
open  sea.^ 

Although  this  policy,  pursued  with  unremitting  devotion,  ex- 
tended the  national  domain  to  the  Arctic,  the  Pacific,  the 
Baltic,  the  Black  and  the  White  seas,  yet  Russia,  for  many 
months  each  year,  is  immured  behind  ice-barriers ;  international 
trade  in  this  closed  season  consisting  of  that  relatively  insig-nifi- 
cant  interchange  with  neighboring  nations,  borne  upon  the  in- 
adequate railways.  In  the  endeavor  to  partake  of  the  free- 
dom of  the  seas,  the  territorial  acquisitions  in  Finland  and  on 
the  Pacific  coast,  following  the  Crimean  War,  are  significant. 
Every  difficulty  in  which  China  has  become  involved  has  af- 
forded opportunity  for  Russia  to  extend  further  southward 
into  Manchuria,  seeking  a  port  beyond  the  winter's  ice.  Fol- 
lowing the  opening  of  the  Amur  to  Russia  in  1858,  this  endeavor 
was  continued  insistently,  until  the  interposition  of  Japan  in 
1904  compelled  the  abandonment  of  further  activity  in  the  Ear 
East.  (Michie,  "  The  Englishman  in  China  During  the  Vic- 
torian Era,"  II,  pg.  429.)  2 

1  Peter  the  Great  was  so  impressed  with  the  value  of  shipping  in  the 
development  of  the  Empire  that  he  studied  ship-building  at  Zaandam  in 
Holland  (1697),  under  the  incognito  of  Peter  Mikhailov.  The  hut  in 
which  he  lodged,  once  the  property  of  the  Czar  of  Russia,  is  sheltered  be- 
neath the  substantial  museum  which  has  been  recently  erected. 

2  All  ports  on  the  northern  coasts  of  Russia  are  ice-bound  for  several 
months  each  year  with  the  single  exception  of  Kola,  situated  at  the  head 


RELATION    TO    INTEElSTATIOlSrAL    COMMUNICATION  11 

The  ambition  of  Eussia  is  to  gain  free  access  to  the  Mediter- 
ranean, since  the  development  of  ports  on  the  northern  coasts 
would  fail  to  meet  the  economic  requirements,  overland  car- 
riage from  the  industrial  districts  to  these  remote  coasts  being 
of  prohibitive  cost.  It  is  on  the  Black  Sea  that  Kussia  seeks 
further  maritime  development,  for  many  important  industrial 
centers  are  close  at  hand,  while  the  more  distant  are  in  facile 
communication  by  means  of  the  admirable  system  of  inland 
Avaterways;  a  result  of  extensive  improvements  of  the  great 
rivers  which  flow  into  this  sea. 

However,  this  enormous  empire  must  endure  the  limitations 
imposed  by  adverse  geographical  and  political  conditions,  unless 
the  termination  of  the  present  war  shall  afford  opportunity 
to  crown  with  success  the  work  begun  by  Peter  the  Great  and 
Catherine  II.  The  destiny  of  Kussia  in  maritime  enterprise 
rests  in  the  determination  of  the  question  whether  the  Bos- 
phorus  shall  remain  under  the  dominion  of  a  nation  heedless 
of  the  needs  of  international  communication,  or  shall  become  an 
unrestricted  highway.  Heretofore,  Russia  has  endured  the  im- 
perfect and  politically  dependent  access  to  the  sea  afforded  by 
these  straits,  a  paradoxical  situation,  in  fact,  a  free  interior  sea 
being  connected  with  the  waterways  of  the  world  by  straits  bur- 
dened with  restrictions,  and  susceptible  of  absolute  closure  at 
the  will  of  an  independent  sovereignty. 

General  Trepoff,  the  Russian  Premier,  speaking  before  the 
Duma  in  November,  1916,  declared  that  for  more  than  a  thou- 
sand years  Russia  had  been  reaching  southward  toward  a  free 

of  Catherine  Harbor.  An  off-shoot  of  the  Gulf  Stream,  rounding  North 
Cape,  renders  this  port  ice-free  at  every  season  of  the  year.  Here  Russia 
has  unobstructed  access  to  the  ^Yestern  Sea,  but,  as  a  trade  route.  Kola 
suffers  serious  limitations,  being  more  than  eight  hundred  miles  from 
Petrograd,  and  nearly  two  thousand  miles  from  the  chief  industrial  dis- 
tricts. Since  the  completion  of  the  railway,  connecting  this  newly  estab- 
lished port  with  the  interior  of  Russia  (January,  1916),  Kola  has  as- 
sumed importance  as  an  entrepot  for  war  munitions.  A  noteworthy  sav- 
ing has  been  effected  in  the  transportation  of  these  supplies,  as  hereto- 
fore practically  all  munitions  arrivin^r  in  Russia  from  other  countries 
have  entered  by  Vladivostok  and  the  Siberian  Railway,  in  order  to  avoid 
the  excessive  delays  experienced  at  the  ports  in  the  White  Sea. 


12  INTEEISTATIONAL,    WATERWATS 

outlet  on  the  open  sea,  and  that  this  age-long  dream,  cherished 
in  the  hearts  of  the  Eussian  people,  was  ahoiit  to  be  realized. 

For  Eiissia,  at  least,  ^N'apoleon's  declaration  that  Constanti- 
nople is  the  key  of  the  world,  has  become  an  inflexible  creed. 

The  Independent  States  situated  within  the  basin  of  the 
Danube  await  the  ultimate  and  complete  establishment  of  this 
long-deferred  freedom  with  an  anxiety  no  less  acute  than  that  of 
Russia,  since  certain  of  these  states  are  wholly  dependent  upon 
the  navigation  of  the  Black  Sea,  of  the  internationalized  Dan- 
ube, and  upon  the  unrestricted  passage  of  the  Bosphorus  for 
continuous  participation  in  the  ocean-borne  commerce  of  the 
world. 

The  vital  necessity  of  sea-communication  in  the  life  of  na- 
tions is  apparent  in  every  phase  of  the  long  struggle  to  gain  the 
unrestricted  navigation  of  the  waterways  throughout  the  world ; 
from  the  earliest  period  when  the  sea  was  available  for  all  who 
possessed  the  courage  to  venture;  through  the  centuries  of  re- 
strictions following  the  Middle  Age  discoveries,  successively 
levied  by  the  dominant  maritime  nations ;  to  the  present  epoch 
of  virtual,  universal  freedom. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  ADVENT  OF  MARITIME  ENTEEPKISE 

The  importance  of  freedom  of  navigation  arises  principally 
from  the  fact  that  the  sea  and  its  connecting  waters  are  the  only 
continuous  highways  of  the  world.  As  Friedrich  List  declares, 
the  oceans  are  the  world's  highway,  the  nations'  parade  ground, 
liberty's  cradle,  and  the  playground  for  the  enterprise  and  en- 
ergy of  all  peoples. 

"  For,"  as  he  states  in  another  instance,  "  the  sea  gives 
strength  to  nations  as  to  individuals,  refreshment  to  their  mem- 
bers and  life  to  their  minds.  It  fits  them  to  undertake  great 
projects.  .  .  .  From  time  immemorial  salt  water  has  healed 
national  ills.  .  .  .  The  sea  strengthens  the  whole  constitution, 
for  it  brings  riches  and  enjoyment,  comfort  and  good  cheer, 
within  the  reach  of  the  mass  of  the  people.  .  .  .  The  sea  has 
an  inexhaustible  store  of  good  things  for  those  who  have  the 
courage  and  strength  to  take  them."  (Hirst,  "  Life  of  Fried- 
rich  List,"  pg.  91.) 

Yet  the  free  use  of  the  vast  extent  of  ocean,  expressed  in  the 
principle  of  "  the  freedom  of  the  seas,"  became  an  accomplished 
fact  barely  a  century  ago,  being  still  subject  to  certain  limita- 
tions both  in  peace  and  in  war. 

Since  the  vindication  of  this  principle  is  virtually  the  gen- 
esis of  the  still  more  enlightened  policy  among  nations  which 
accords  unrestricted  commercial  navigation  on  those  waters, 
separating  or  traversing  different  sovereignties;  since,  indeed, 
the  opportunities,  the  facilities,  the  benefits  of  such  unrestricted 
navigation  on  inland  waters  differ  only  from  those  on  the  high 
seas  in  volume,  a  brief  survey  of  the  development  of  maritime 
commerce  and  maritime  law  is  indispensable  as  affording  a 
clearer  understanding  of  the  inception  and  development  of  this 

13 


14  INTERNATIONAL    WATEEWAYS 

most  liberal  principle ;  a  principle  which  is  virtually  an  exten- 
sion of  that  which  maintains  the  freedom  of  the  illimitable  sea. 

When  or  where  the  sea  was  first  impressed  into  the  service 
of  humanity,  to  assist  through  the  subsequent  centuries  in  the 
dissemination  of  civilization,  is  relatively  unimportant  in  view 
of  larger  considerations  regarding  the  characteristics  of  water 
transportation  which  fostered  this  intercommunication  and  the 
resultant  enterprise  and  institutions,  continuing  in  progressive 
development  from  the  da\vn  of  history.  In  antiquity,  the  over- 
seas traffic  was  negligible.  Water-borne  commerce  followed 
the  courses  of  the  great  rivers  or  close  within  the  sheltering 
shores  of  the  Euxine  and  Mediterranean.  For  a  time  the  value 
of  the  sea,  save  as  a  fishing  ground,  was  little  appreciated,  but 
gradually  the  advantages  of  water  transportation  were  realized, 
and  as  sea  commerce  developed,  local  seclusion  was  effaced. 
The  facilities  offered  by  the  sea-routes,  patently  superior  to 
those  over  land,  led  the  early  mariners  beyond  the  sight  of  the 
familiar  coasts,  for  the  advantages  of  the  direct  course  over  that 
following  the  sinuosities  of  the  shore  were  manifest.^ 

Advantages  of  Maritime  Enterprise  Appreciated. —  On 
the  Mediterranean,  where  the  first  extensive  maritime  trade  had 
its  beginning,  the  advantages  of  sea  communication  were  readily 
apparent,  for  the  three  continents  surrounding  this  sea  com- 
prised the  known  world,  and  the  Mediterranean  rendered  the 
most  facile  means  of  communication  between  them,  as  the  Seven 
Seas  today  afford  the  most  advantageous  communication  be- 
tween the  continents  of  the  globe.  From  the  advent  of  the 
Phoenician  mariners,  throughout  the  succeeding  centuries,  the 
Mediterranean  has  demonstrated  the  profound  influence  which 

1  Early  man  undertook  his  sea-faring  adventures  only  where  protecting 
sea-ward  islands  afforded  shelter  during  his  novitiate;  as  in  the  iEgean, 
along  the  shores  of  the  North  Sea,  at  the  mouths  of  the  Orinoco,  in  the 
straits  of  San  Juan  de  Fuca,  and  in  the  quiet  waters  of  the  Malay 
Archipelago  and  similar  island  groups  in  the  South  Seas.  On  the  coasts 
of  Africa,  on  the  western  and  southeastern  shores  of  South  America,  along 
the  unsheltered  sea-board  of  North  America,  Asia  and  Europe,  there  is  no 
evidence  of  such  aboriginal  development.  In  fact,  the  highest  degree  of 
primitive  nautical  development  was  attained  wherever  the  shore  line  was 
most  indented. 


THE    ADVENT    OF    MARITIME    ENTEEPEISE  15 

maritime  communication  exerts  upon  the  progress  of  humanity. 
The  advantageous  maritime  situations  enjoyed  by  Persia, 
Egypt,  Greece,  and  Kome,  during  their  successive  periods  of 
pre-eminence,  served  to  accelerate  the  development  and  ex- 
tension of  their  institutions,  both  industrial  and  intellectual. 
The  sea  connected  these  states  with  all  the  known  world,  and  the 
sea-traders,  penetrating  the  most  remote  regions,  together  with 
the  thriving  colonies,  developing  in  a  kindred  manner  on  dis- 
tant shores,  were  potent  factors  in  this  process  of  world  civiliza- 
tion. 

The  Phoenicians  acquired  pre-eminence  on  the  Mediterra- 
nean at  a  very  early  time,  not  through  slaughter  and  conquest, 
but  because  of  their  extensive  trade,  consisting  chiefly  of  neces- 
sities. To  isolated  tribes  on  the  Mediterranean's  furthest  shores 
these  intrepid  mariners  carried  their  products,  and,  perhaps 
often  unconsciously,  the  elements  of  the  higher  civilization 
under  which  they  were  thriving  along  the  eastern  shore.  Even- 
tually their  commerce  extended  beyond  the  confines  of  the  Med- 
iterranean, the  necessity  of  discovering  further  deposits  of  the 
much-prized  shell-fish  from  which  the  renowned  purple  dye  was 
extracted  being  an  incentive,  no  less  than  the  desire  for  a  more 
expanded  trade.  Itinerant  merchants  passed  beyond  the  Pil- 
lars of  Hercules  and  were  followed  by  colonists  who  established 
settlements  in  northwestern  Africa  and  on  the  Iberian  Penin- 
sula. Long  before  the  Greeks  had  undertaken  their  extensive 
campaign  of  colonization,  these  settlements,  originally  merely 
Phoenician  trading  posts,  had  developed  into  thriving  colonies 
at  strategic  points  along  the  shores  of  Italy,  Africa,  Corsica, 
Gaul,  and  Spain,  Utica  and  Cadiz  (Gades),  being  advantage- 
ously situated,  rapidly  developed  to  the  estate  of  prosperous 
colonies,  and  Carthage,  founded  on  the  site  of  an  abandoned 
trading  station,  soon  became  a  mighty  city,  controlling  many 
subsidiary  trading  stations  throughout  the  western  Mediterra- 
nean, and  opening  additional  trade  routes  along  the  western 
shores  of  Gaul  to  distant  Albion.  Still  more  extended  routes 
to  the  north  and  eastward  brought  the  riches  of  India  over 


16  INTERNATIONAL    WATKRWAYS 

land  and  sea  in  return  for  the  products  of  these  enterprising 
Phoenician  navigators ;  the  first  commercial  sailors  on  the  high 
seas  in  all  history.  (Pardessus,  "  Collection  de  lois  maritimes," 
Vol.  I,  pg.  xviii.)  Through  their  genius,  their  faith  in  the 
permanent  advantage  of  sea  transportation,  the  science  of  navi- 
gation under  their  influence  progressed  rapidly,  and  the  sea, 
hitherto  an  insurmountable  barrier,  became  a  highway  over 
which  people  voyaged  into  distant  lands.  ^ 

The  enviable  position  enjoyed  by  Phoenicia  was  fully  appre- 
ciated by  contemporaneous  nations,  and  Egypt,  Assyria,  Baby- 
lon, and  Persia  made  successive  endeavors  to  acquire  these  mar- 
itime resources.  The  efforts  of  Egypt  to  secure  the  assistance 
of  the  Phoenician  cities  displays  an  unique  situation  in  mari- 
time enterprise,  and  at  the  same  time  affords  an  early  example 
of  governmental  recognition  of  the  paramount  necessity  of  sea 
trade. 

As  a  race,  the  Egyptians  were  not  interested  in  navigation 
and  commercial  pursuits  and  made  no  effort  to  stimulate  com- 
munication with  foreign  states.  But  at  a  later  epoch,  when  the 
resources  and  industries  of  Egypt  were  more  fully  developed, 
the  necessity  of  some  facile  means  for  the  interchange  of  prod- 
ucts with  distant  foreign  nations  became  imperative.  There- 
upon, to  fulfill  this  need,  important  maritime  cities  in  Phce- 

1  Raleigh,  Works,  Vol.  VIII,  322-23,  comments  on  the  early  develop- 
ment of  maritime  enterprise  among  the  Phoenicians.  "  The  first  good 
ships  were  among  the  Tyrians  (Strabo,  Lib.  16.),  and  they  had  good  and 
great  ships  not  long  after  the  war  with  Troy;  and  in  Solomon's  time  they 
were  of  that  account  as  Solomon  invited  Hiram,  King  of  Tyre,  to  join 
with  him  in  his  journey  into  the  East  Indies,  for  the  Israelites,  till  then, 
never  traded  by  sea,  and  seldom,  if  ever,  after;  and  that  the  Tyrians  were 
the  chief  in  that  enterprise  it  appears  in  that  they  were  called,  ...  in 
the  Hebrew,  saith  Junius  (I  Kings,  C.  9)  homines  navium;  and  in  our 
English  mariners.  .  .  .  Hiram  sent  Solomon  ships  (II  Chronicles,  8) 
and  servants  skillful  of  the  sea,  whereby  it  is  probable  that  the  Tyrians 
had  used  the  trade  of  East  India  before  the  days  of  Solomon,  or  before 
the  reign  of  David,  when  themselves  commanded  the  ports  of  the  Red 
Sea.  The  Tyrians  were  forced  to  make  Solomon  the  chief  of  that  expedi- 
tion, and  to  join  with  him  in  the  enterprise;  for  the  Tyrians  had  no  pass 
to  the  Red  Sea,  but  through  the  territory  of  Solomon,  and  by  his  suffer- 
ance." 


THE    ADVENT    OF    MARITIME    ENTERPRISE  17 

nicia,  on  the  island  of  Cyprus,  and  in  Asia  Minor  were  enlisted 
in  the  Egyptian  maritime  service.  This  abrupt  departure  from 
an  age-long  policy  brought  new  prestige  to  Egypt  because  of 
the  increased  influence  secured  along  the  coasts  of  the  Medi- 
terranean, and  because  of  important  changes  affecting  the  sea 
routes  to  India. 

Traffic  between  the  Mediterranean  and  the  remote  parts  of 
Asia,  since  the  earliest  times,  had  followed  three  distinct  routes, 
all  of  which  form  important  commercial  highways  in  modern 
times.  On  the  most  northerly  route,  goods  were  shipped 
through  the  ^gean,  the  Euxine  and  Caspian  seas,  and,  if  des- 
tined for  India,  were  carried  on  by  the  Indus  River.  As  a  com- 
mercial highway,  this  route  was  subjected  to  the  serious  limita- 
tion that  it  required  land  carriage  over  the  Caucasus  Mountains 
and  through  Turkestan.  (Pardessus,  "  Collection  de  lois  mari- 
times,"  II,  xix;  III,  vi.)  Of  still  greater  importance  was  the 
central  route  through  the  Arabian  Sea,  the  Persian  Gulf,  and  the 
Euphrates  Valley,  which  afforded  opportunity  for  water  transit 
the  entire  distance  with  the  exception  of  the  short  overland  car- 
riage between  the  upper  Euphrates  and  the  shores  of  the  Medi- 
terranean. It  was  this  route  which  brought  continued  pros- 
perity to  Tyre,  Sidon,  and  to  all  the  Phoenician  cities,  for  the 
trade  with  the  Orient,  facilitated  by  the  opportunity  for  rela- 
tively inexpensive  water  transportation,  was  lucrative.  The 
third  route,  the  more  southerly,  acquired  enhanced  importance 
following  the  active  participation  of  Egypt  in  maritime  affairs, 
resulting  in  the  foundation  of  Alexandria  and  the  encouragement 
of  more  extensive  enterprise  in  transportation  across  the  low-ly- 
ing isthmus  between  the  Red  Sea  and  the  delta  of  the  Nile.  The 
increasing  volume  of  commerce  which  passed  over  this  most 
southerly  route,  together  with  the  control  exercised  over  the  two 
northern  routes  through  the  subsidiary  Phoenician  cities,  ac- 
corded the  Egyptians  a  predominant  position  in  world  trade. 
Though  the  sea-borne  traffic  followed  the  Egyptian-Red  Sea 
route  in  increasing  volume,  nevertheless,  Tyre,  Beirut,  Sidon, 


18  INTEENATIONAL    WATERWAYS 

and  other  sea-ports  of  the  Euphrates  route  maintained  an  undim- 
inished importance  because  of  the  rich  trade  in  Mesopotamia  and 
the  incidental  trade  which  still  flourished  with  the  Far  East. 

But  the  power  of  Egypt  over  the  seas  diminished  and  the 
resources  of  the  Phoenicians,  passing  for  a  time  under  Baby- 
lonian dominion,  eventually  became  incorporated  within  the 
vast  Persian  Empire.  The  opportunity  for  the  further  ex- 
pansion of  that  mighty  nation  on  the  shores  of  the  western  sea 
was  greatly  improved  by  the  acquisition  of  these  extensive  mar- 
itime interests ;  but  beyond  the  waters  of  the  JEgean  the  rapid 
development  of  a  sturdier  nation  was  already  challenging  the 
continued  extension  of  Persian  power  throughout  the  Med- 
iterranean. 

From  early  times  the  Greeks  had  enjoyed  a  substantial  sea 
trade  which  extended  into  the  Euxine.  The  predominance  of 
the  Phoenicians  in  all  maritime  interests  had  exerted,  hereto- 
fore, only  negligible  curtailment  of  Grecian  industry  on  the  sea. 
However,  now  that  the  vast  resources  of  the  Phoenicians  were 
enlisted  to  fulfill  the  ambitious  designs  of  the  Persians,  the 
further  expansion  of  Grecian  trade,  as  well  as  the  independent 
existence  of  the  Grecian  government,  was  threatened.  With 
the  conflict  impending  Themistocles  appeared  as  leader  of  the 
Greeks  and  discerned  that  the  issue  would  be  decided,  inevi- 
tably, by  naval  operations,  for  Athens  had  ceased  to  exist 
chiefly  as  a  land  power  in  consequence  of  the  extensive  develop- 
ment of  maritime  interests.  (Grote,  "  History  of  Greece," 
(1849),  Vol.  V,  pg.  67.)  This  insistence  upon  the  urgency  of 
increased  naval  resources  afforded  Themistocles  sufficient  power 
to  meet  the  vast  flotilla  of  the  invading  Persians,  recruited 
largely  from  the  Phoenician  cities,  victoriously  at  Salamis 
(October  20,  480  b.  c).  Though  apparently  hopelessly  over- 
matched by  the  two  thousand  war-vessels  under  Xerxes,  still, 
by  the  skillful  manoeuvring  of  the  meagre  force  of  three  hun- 
dred Grecian  vessels  within  the  narrow  waters,  Themistocles 
achieved  a  notable  victory,  compelling  the  precipitate  retreat  of 
the  Persian  hosts  with  a  loss  of  more  than  two  himdred  ships  of 


THE   ADVENT    OF    MARITIME    ENTERPRISE  19 

war.  Thenceforth,  the  powerful  influence  of  Phoenicia  in  Med- 
iterranean affairs  ceased  to  exist  and  Greece  entered  upon  an 
unprecedented  development  over  seas.  This  noteworthy  ex- 
pansion, both  in  maritime  and  colonial  interests,  was  fostered 
by  the  shrewd  leadership  of  Pericles,  who  clearly  recognized 
the  value  of  an  extensive  maritime  influence  as  a  means  of 
strengthening  the  political  prestige  and  prosperity  of  the  state. 
To  the  Athenians  he  declared  that  every  other  interest  should 
yield  foremost  place  to  the  expansion  of  overseas  commerce. 
(Pardessus,  "  Collection  de  lois  maritimes,"  I,  36.)  The  ex- 
ample of  Khodes  which  had  developed  a  noteworthy  sea  power 
through  a  wide-spread  carrying  trade  was  an  added  stimulus. 

Athens  soon  became  an  universal  market  and  a  regular  in- 
terchange of  commodities  was  carried  on  with  all  the  known 
countries  of  the  civilized  world,  extending  throughout  Thrace, 
Asia  Minor,  Egypt,  and  to  the  more  remote  regions  beyond  the 
Bosphorus  and  in  the  western  Mediterranean.  Along  these 
trade  routes,  temporary  posts  were  established  which  developed 
into  important  colonies  under  the  direction  of  Pericles,  to  whom 
credit  is  due  for  establishing  the  naval  and  colonial  power  of 
Athens  on  a  firm,  permanent  basis. 

Unlike  the  Greeks,  the  Romans  were  not  a  sea-faring  people. 
Even  by  the  end  of  the  Republic,  the  Romans  were  loath  to 
venture  upon  the  open  sea.  Universally,  the  ocean  was  re- 
garded not  so  much  as  a  means  of  unlimited  communication, 
an  unrestricted  highway,  connecting  the  different  and  most  dis- 
tant countries  of  the  world,  but  rather  as  an  insurmountable 
barrier.  The  Romans  expressed  their  contempt  for  maritime 
commerce  by  prohibiting  its  pursuit  to  persons  of  birth,  rank, 
and  fortune ;  and  it  was  further  provided  that  no  senator  should 
acquire  a  vessel  larger  than  that  required  to  carry  his  own 
wine,  corn,  and  other  products  of  his  lands.  (Phillipson,  "  In- 
ternational Law  and  Customs  of  Ancient  Greece  and  Rome," 
Vol.  II,  369.)      (Herron,  "Jurisprudence,"  pg.  29.) 

In  the  growth  of  naval  power,  as  in  the  expansion  of  other 
maritime  interests,  Rome  exhibited  a  peculiar  conservatism. 


20  INTERNATIONAL    WATERWAYS 

Until  the  First  Punic  War,  tlie  Koman  State  had  never  engaged 
in  hostilities  on  the  seas,  and  at  this  crisis,  in  the  absence  of 
adequate  knowledge  respecting  ship-building  and  navigation, 
hired  vessels  were  necessarily  employed  to  meet  the  enemy. 
Thereupon,  the  necessity  of  maritime  power  was  tardily  recog- 
nized. Fleets,  both  naval  and  mercantile,  were  constructed  and 
under  the  incentive  of  the  impending  peril  to  the  state  such  rapid 
progress  ensued  that  Eoman  sea-power  became  dominant  at 
the  close  of  the  Third  Punic  War,  following  the  complete  de- 
struction of  Carthaginian  supremacy  in  the  western  Medi- 
terranean. 

During  the  Empire,  security  on  the  sea  became  of  the  utmost 
importance  for  the  food  supplies  within  Italy  soon  became 
inadequate.  Following  the  conquest  of  Egypt,  Augustus  estab- 
lished a  regular  fleet  to  bring  the  constantly  increasing  supplies 
of  grain  demanded  at  Rome.  As  a  further  safeguard  against 
the  disaster  which  would  be  wrought  by  an  extended  inter- 
ruption of  maritime  transportation,  Eoman  conquest  was  ex- 
tended progressively  along  the  shores  of  the  Mediterranean. 
Eventually,  through  successive  acquisitions  of  territory,  the 
Mediterranean  became  encircled  by  the  provinces  of  Rome, 
rather  than  embracing  them  as  formerly.  In  its  new  character 
as  a  vast  inland  sea,  the  Mediterranean  exerted  a  powerful  and 
unique  service  in  binding  together  the  mighty  world-empire  of 
Rome,  through  the  generous  facilities  which  it  afforded  for 
rapid  and  unrestricted  communication  between  the  widely  sepa- 
rated provinces.  (Kirchoif,  "  The  Sea  in  the  Life  of  Na- 
tions," pg.  399.) 

But  industry,  trade  beyond  the  seas,  and  all  the  most  prized 
institutions  of  civilization  are  forever  threatened  by  destructive 
and  disintegrating  forces.  The  incursions  of  barbarous  tribes, 
wanton  and  harassing  attacks  by  hostile  nations,  and  the  in- 
sidious inertia  and  laxity  which  results  from  prolonged  ma- 
terial welfare,  all  contributed  to  the  decline  and  fall  of  Rome. 
The  once  mighty  Empire  was  trampled  beneath  the  invading 
barbarous  hordes  and  the  development  of  extensive  maritime 


THE    ADVENT    OF    MAEITIME    ENTERPRISE  21 

enterprise  terminated  in  the  impenetrable  chaos  of  the  Dark 
Ages.-^ 

Sea-faring  was  destined  to  continue  negligible  throughout 
several  centuries,  until  revived  by  the  pervading  enthusiasm  of 
the  Holy  Crusades,  and  by  the  revolutionary  discoveries  of 
the  fifteenth  century,  startling  all  nations  into  feverish  activ- 
ity with  the  realization  of  the  limitless  possibilities  from  com- 
merce upon  the  seas.  Though  interest  in  navigation  survived 
the  collapse  of  civilization  as  developed  under  Eoman  cultiva- 
tion, yet  it  was  unmarked  by  that  profound  zeal  and  pro- 
gressive expansion  which  had  characterized  the  maritime  de- 
velopment of  Rome,  following  the  triumphant  termination  of 
the  Punic  wars;  and  of  Phoenicia  and  Greece  at  an  earlier 
period. 

In  l^orthern  Europe,  the  beneficent  sovereignty  of  Charle- 
magne afforded  a  brief  opportunity  for  the  revival  and  develop- 
ment of  commerce  and  navigation,  though  the  enterprise  did 
not  assume  a  world-wide  character,  the  commercial  interest 
being  concentrated  chiefly  on  the  development  of  the  internal 
trade.  The  successive  conquests  of  Charlemagne,  culminating 
in  his  coronation  (800  a.  d.)  by  Pope  Leo  III,  as  Emperor  of 
the  Occident,  afforded  more  extended  opportunity  for  com- 
mercial expansion.  To  facilitate  communication  between  the 
various  provinces  of  the  Occidental  Empire  and  to  meet  the  de- 
mands of  the  increasing  volume  of  inland  traffic,  extensive 
operations  were  undertaken  to  improve  the  waterways  of  the 
realm.  In  addition  to  this  notable  internal  development, 
Charlemagne  sought  to  extend  the  commercial  interests  of  his 
subjects  to  embrace  enterprise  of  an  international  character. 
In  pursuance  of  this  policy,  the  construction  of  a  canal  was 
undertaken,  connecting  the  navigable  waters  of  the  Rhine  and 
the   Danube   rivers,   to   encourage   an   increased   exchange   of 

1  Montesquieu,  "Esprit  de  lois,"  Bk.  XXI,  c.  17,  observes  that  "  after 
the  invasion  of  the  Roman  Empire,  one  effect  of  the  general  calamity  was 
the  destruction  of  commerce.  .  .  .  Soon  was  the  commerce  of  Europe  al- 
most entirely  lost  .  .  .  there  being  very  little  trade  in  the  countries  con- 
quered by  these  barbarians." 


22  INTERNATIONAL    WATERWAYS 

products  with  Asia  Minor  and  tlie  countries  bordering  on  the 
Euxine.  (Pardessus,  "  Collection  de  lois  maritimes,"  I,  Ixxiv.) 
But  the  Norman  invasions  during  the  latter  years  of  Charle- 
magne's reign,  compelling  a  concentration  of  the  national  ener- 
gies for  defensive  purposes,  prevented  the  consummation  of  this 
project,  and  the  continued  success  which  attended  the  invaders 
restricted  the  further  expansion  of  the  extensive  internal  com- 
merce which  had  already  been  developed. 

In  supplanting  the  Franks,  these  Northmen  showed  slight 
inclination  toward  the  development  of  maritime  enterprise. 
Invited  by  the  wide  freedom  of  the  seas,  they  sought  distant 
regions,  not  with  the  intention  of  developing  commerce  and 
constructive  intercommunication,  but  for  the  purpose  of  dis- 
covering additional  plunder.  Their  marauding  hosts  had  al- 
ready invaded  the  streams  of  Eastern  England;  the  Elbe;  the 
Rhine,  resulting  in  the  plunder  of  Cologne ;  and  were  destined, 
still  later,  to  extend  their  activities  into  the  Western  Mediter- 
ranean, culminating  in  the  conquest  of  Sicily  and  the  establish- 
ment of  the  kingdom  of  the  Two  Sicilies.  This  expansion  into 
the  waters  of  the  Mediterranean  brought  the  Normans  into 
contact  with  a  maritime  state  which  had  slowly  been  extend- 
ing its  commercial  interests  throughout  the  East,  and  which 
had  developed  sufficient  sea-power  to  protect  this  lucrative  com- 
merce. 

As  early  as  the  sixth  century  (58-i),  when  the  water-borne 
trade  of  Northern  Europe  was  almost  Avhollj^  local  and  internal, 
the  Venetians  had  been  invited  to  form  an  alliance  with  the  Em- 
pire of  the  East,  securing  for  them  the  right  to  trade  at  Con- 
stantinople, free  from  all  vexatious  tolls  and  delays.  Gradu- 
ally Venetian  enterprise  expanded,  developing  increased  re- 
sources in  the  East  and  opening  a  trade  route  across  the  Alps 
into  Northern  Europe,  eventually  supplemented  by  the  all-sea 
route  through  the  Western  Mediterranean  and  the  Atlantic. 

An  unexpected  incentive  to  the  lucrative  trade  which  Venice 
had  been  developing  appeared  with  the  Crusades  into  the  Holy 
Land.     Though  the  early   Crusades  of  Godfrey  of  Bouillon 


THE    ADVENT    OF    MAKITIME    ENTEBPEISE  23 

(1096)  and  Louis  VII  (1147)  followed  land  routes,  it  was 
soon  appreciated  that  the  sea  offered  an  easier,  safer  highway, 
and  Venice,  sharing  a  minor  part  of  the  trade  with  Genoa  and 
Pisa,  enjoyed  thereafter  great  profit  from  the  transportation 
of  these  expeditions  and  from  the  freights  on  the  subsequent 
shipments  of  additional  supplies.  It  is  difficult  to  estimate 
the  influence  which  this  rapidly  developing  commerce  exercised 
in  enlightening  the  various  countries  of  Europe  through  the 
ready  means  it  afforded  for  the  interchange  of  ideas  and  for 
the  observation  of  widely  divergent  institutions.  The  Crusades 
served  to  accelerate  the  progress  of  civilization  which  was  being 
already  consummated  by  the  extension  of  maritime  enterprise, 
and  more  quickly  developed  the  conditions  which  led  to  the 
inevitable  discoveries  beyond  the  seas  during  the  fifteenth  cen- 
tury. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE    INSTITUTION    OF    MAEITIME    LAW 

In  reviewing  tlie  advent  and  expansion  of  maritime  enter- 
prise an  important  development,  designed  to  protect  commerce 
upon  all  the  international  waterways  of  the  world,  must  be 
considered  co-ordinately;  the  extension  of  law  to  maritime 
affairs.  The  discovery  of  the  precise  source  of  the  various 
bodies  of  law  which  have  safeguarded  commerce  for  centuries 
is  relatively  unimportant,  compared  with  the  recognition  of  the 
beneficent  influence  which  these  laws  have  exerted  through 
progressive  application  to  the  growing  necessities  of  commerce 
over  the  world's  waterways.  The  influence  of  commerce, 
uniting  humanity  by  the  strongest  bonds  through  the  mutual 
interchange  of  indispensable  commodities,  is  constantly  exerted 
for  securing  a  more  complete  development  of  international 
law,  in  which  is  embodied  the  maritime  law  of  nations.^ 

Men  of  different  nations  engage  in  the  trafiic  of  the  sea  and 
serious  problems  arise  in  this  sea-trafiic  because  of  the  conflict- 
ing interests  of  the  diverse  nationalities.  Since  the  use  of  the 
sea,  subject  to  occasional  exceptions,  is  regarded  as  the  common 
right  of  all  mankind,  the  settlement  of  the  conflicting  interests 
which  may  arise  by  a  resort  to  force  is  inconclusive  and  unsatis- 
factory, for  the  result  may  be  wholly  at  variance  with  the  justice 
of  the  opposing  claims.  Furthermore,  the  enjoyment  of  the 
resources  of  the  sea  may  be  denied,  in  a  varying  degree,  both  to 
the  disputants  and  to  those  disinterested  in  the  controversy. 
Consequently,  in  the  service  of  the  best  interests  of  all  who  use 

1  Richard  Zouche,  considering  the  "Jurisdiction  of  the  Admiralty  of 
England,"  pg.  8,  declares  that  both  common  and  statute  laws  of  England 
take  notice  of  the  law  merchant,  and  leave  the  causes  of  merchants  to 
be  decided  by  the  rules  of  that  law,  which,  "  as  it  is  part  of  the  law  of 
nature  and  of  nations  is  universal,  and  one  and  the  same  in  all  countries 
of  the  world." 

24 


THE    INSTITUTION    OF    MAEITIME    LAW  26 

the  sea,  certain  principles  of  justice  were  necessarily  accepted 
at  an  early  stage  in  sea-faring,  as  governing  particular  circum- 
stances. Gradually,  from  these  fundamental  principles,  an 
extensive  body  of  maritime  law  was  developed,  occupying  an 
important  position  in  the  law  of  nations.  In  discussing  this 
early  phase  of  the  inception  and  development  of  law  binding 
upon  different  nations,  Phillipson  declares  that  the  principles 
of  equality,  reciprocity,  and  subservience  to  the  law  were  not 
then  as  explicit  and  as  firmly  established  as  they  are  now,  yet  to 
admit  this  is  not  to  imply  the  admission  that  international  law 
then  was  a  nonentity,  but  simply  to  concede  that  it  had  not 
the  breadth,  the  completeness,  the  firm  basis,  the  scientific  co- 
ordination of  modern  law.  (Phillipson,  "International  Law 
ajid  Custom  of  Ancient  Greece  and  Home,"  Vol.  I,  60.) 

Because  of  the  widely  divergent  interests  involved,  the 
conduct  of  commerce  must  be  regulated  by  law,  whether 
the  trade  is  national  or  international.  The  usages  of  the  sea 
which  develop,  termed  sea-laws  by  the  writers  on  maritime  law 
in  the  sixteenth  century,  may  be  accorded  the  force  of  cus- 
tomary law;  either  by  the  resolutions  of  a  convention  of  mer- 
chants and  shippers,  as  illustrated  by  the  Laws  of  Wisby,  or, 
like  the  Laws  of  Oleron,  by  the  judgments  of  a  maritime  court. 
Such  customary  law  may  be  supplemented  or  superseded  by  the 
statutory  provisions  of  any  sovereigtity,  though  such  enact- 
ments may  exercise  no  effect  upon  that  part  of  the  customary 
maritime  law  which  has  been  embodied  in  the  law  of  nations, 
unless  it  is  subsequently  received  as  law  by  the  various  mari- 
time states  in  their  mutual  relations.  Clearly  no  single  nation 
can  change  the  law  of  the  sea.  That  law  is  of  universal  obli- 
gation, and  no  statute  of  one  nation  can  create  obligations  for 
the  whole  world.  Like  all  the  law  of  nations  it  rests  upon  the 
consent  of  civilized  communities,  accorded  force,  not  because 
it  is  prescribed  by  any  superior  power,  but  because  generally 
accepted  as  a  rule  of  conduct.  Whatever  its  origin,  whether 
in  the  usages  of  navigation  or  in  the  ordinances  of  maritime 
states,  or  in  both,  it  has  become  the  law  of  the  sea  only  by  the 


26  INTERNATIONAL    WATERWAYS 

concurrent  sanction  of  those  nations  whicli  constitute  the  com- 
mercial world. 

"  Many  of  the  usages  which  prevail,  and  which  have  the  force 
of  law,  doubtless  originated  in  the  positive  prescriptions  of 
some  single  state,  which  were  at  first  of  limited  effect,  but 
which  when  generally  accepted  became  of  universal  obligation. 
The  Ehodian  law  is  supposed  to  have  been  the  earliest  system  of 
marine  rules.  It  was  a  code  for  Khodians  only,  but  it  soon 
became  of  general  authority,  because  accepted  and  assented  to 
as  a  wise  and  desirable  system  by  other  maritime  nations.  The 
same  may  be  said  of  the  Amalphitan  table,  the  ordinances  of 
the  Hanseatic  Leag-ue,  and  of  part  of  the  marine  ordinances 
of  Louis  XIV.  They  all  became  the  law  of  the  sea,  not  on 
account  of  their  origin,  but  by  reason  of  their  acceptance  as 
such.  It  is  evident  that  unless  general  assent  is  efficacious  to 
give  sanction  to  international  law,  there  never  can  be  that 
growth  and  development  of  maritime  rules  which  the  constant 
changes  in  the  instruments  and  necessities  of  navigation  re- 
quire." ("  The  Scotia,"  14  Wallace  170;  Moore,  "  Digest  of 
International  Law,"  I,  3.)  ^ 

Maritime  law  must  not  be  considered  solely  as  the  law  of  a 
particular  country  but  as  a  part  of  the  general  law  of  nations ; 
including  "  jurisdiction  of  all  things  done  upon  or  relating  to 
the  sea,  or,  in  other  words,  all  transactions  and  proceedings 
relating  to  commerce  and  navigation,  and  to  damages  and  in- 
juries upon  the  sea."  (Jervey  vs.  The  Carolina,  GG  Federal 
1013.)2 

1  Instances  might  be  multiplied  wherein  an  independent  sovereign  ac- 
cepted as  binding  upon  his  courts  certain  maritime  laws  enunciated  by  an- 
other sovereignty.  An  early  example  arises  in  the  ordinance  of  Charles 
V  of  France  (1364),  admitting  Castilians  to  trade  within  the  ports  of 
Leure  and  Harfleur,  and  stipulating  that  their  causes  should  be  adjudi- 
cated in  accordance  with  the  Laws  of  Oleron ;  "  selon  les  coustumes  de  la 
mer  et  les  droiz  de  Layron  (Oleron)  dehors."  Twiss,  "Black  Book  of  the 
Admiralty,"  II,  Ixiv. 

2  "  Maritime  law  is  entirely  distinct  from  the  law  of  the  land.  It  is 
and  always  has  been  a  distinct  and  separate  jurisprudence.  But  though 
relating  to  the  sea,  and  radically  different  in  some  respects  from  the  con- 


THE    INSTITUTION    OF    MAEITIME    LAW  27 

Maritime  law  had  its  inception  in  the  necessity  for  an  equit- 
able regulation  of  the  traffic  on  the  common  highway  of  nations. 
Occupying  thus  a  distinctive  domain,  special  tribunals  were 
established  for  its  administration  distinct  from  those  which 
consider  and  determine  questions  according  to  the  ordinary  law 
of  the  land.  Such  tribunals  were  created  in  the  early  stages  of 
maritime  development,  the  principles  underlying  the  judgments 
rendered  by  these  judicial  bodies  serving  to  amplify  the  provi- 
sions of  the  maritime  law  as  it  gradually  acquired  a  more  com- 
prehensive character.  Quite  naturally,  the  necessity  for  an  ade- 
quate body  of  maritime  law  was  first  apparent  among  those 
nations  which  enjoyed  the  highest  development  of  water-borne 
commerce,  whether  on  the  open  sea,  or  on  inland  waterways, 
utilized  as  channels  of  international  communication. 

The  navigation  laws  of  Babylon  recognized  that  the  Euphrates 
constituted  a  waterway  within  the  latter  category.  As  a  great 
highway,  carrying  the  trade  of  the  Oriental  nations,  its  im- 
portance Avas  comparable  to  that  of  the  sea.  Conflicting  in- 
terests inevitably  clashed,  and  the  effort  to  render  justice  in  the 
disputes  which  arose  produced  a  noteworthy  body  of  law. 
(Pardessus,  "  Collection  de  lois  maritimes,"  I,  20.) 

Among  the  Greeks,  in  a  similar  manner,  maritime  commerce 
and  navigation  were  at  an  early  epoch  in  an  advanced  state  of 
development,  and,  as  a  consequence,  many  regulations  in  regard 
to  maritime  practices  developed,  contemporaneously.  (Phil- 
lipson,  "  The  International  Law  and  Custom  of  Ancient  Greece 
and  Rome,"  II,  368.) 

ception  of  municipal  law,  it  has  always  been  the  attribute  of  some 
sovereignty,  and  enforced  in  the  courts  of  such  sovereignty."  The  Una- 
dilla,  73  Federal,  350. 

"  The  maritime  law  is  only  so  far  operative  as  law  in  any  country  as 
it  is  adopted  by  the  laws  and  usages  of  that  country.  In  this  respect  it 
is  like  international  law,  or  the  laws  of  war,  which  have  the  effect  of  law 
in  no  country  any  further  than  they  are  accejjted  and  received  as  such ;  or 
like  the  case  of  the  civil  law,  which  forms  the  basis  of  most  European 
laws,  but  which  has  the  force  of  law  in  each  state  only  as  it  is  adopted 
therein,  and  with  such  modifications  as  are  deemed  expedient."  The  Lot- 
tawanna,  88  United  States  558. 


28  INTERNATIONAL    WATERWAYS 

In  the  Middle  Ages,  Venice  still  further  illustrates  this  in- 
evitable development  of  law  in  accordance  with  the  progress  of 
conunerce.  Within  thirty  years,  the  necessities  of  Venetian 
sea-trade  produced  three  distinct  maritime  statutes.  Each  suc- 
ceeding statute  retained  only  those  provisions  of  the  former 
code,  sometimes  with  marked  revision,  which  were  still  applica- 
ble to  the  immediate  necessities,  while  new  regulations  ampli- 
fied or  supplanted  the  former  provisions  to  meet  the  problems 
resulting  from  the  rapidly  expanding  maritime  interests. 
(Ashburner,  "  Ehodian  Sea-Law,"  pg.  xlvii.) 

The  lethargy  of  Eome,  with  respect  to  maritime  legislation, 
stands  in  direct  contrast,  and  is  to  be  explained  by  the  fact, 
already  mentioned,  that  the  Romans  felt  indisposed  to  venture 
upon  overseas  enterprise,  until  a  late  period  of  national  devel- 
opment. It  is  significant  that  the  first  instance  within  Eoman 
law  where  the  freedom  of  the  seas  is  declared  common  to  all 
nations  occurred  in  the  Institutes  of  Justinian. 

"  By  the  law  of  nature,  then,  the  following  things  are  com- 
mon to  all  men;  air,  running  water,  the  sea,  and  consequently 
the  shores  of  the  sea.  'No  one,  therefore,  is  debarred  from  ap- 
proaching the  sea-shore,  provided  only  he  does  not  harm  houses, 
monuments,  or  buildings,  because  these  are  not  subject  to  the 
law  of  nations  as  the  sea  is."  ("  Institutes  of  Justinian,"  Bk, 
II,  Tit.  I,  sec.  l.)i 

A  consideration  of  the  various  noteworthy  codes  of  early 
sea-law,  which  frequently  were  accorded  the  distinction  and 
force  of  international  law,  through  acceptance  by  independent 
nations  as  a  binding  declaration  of  the  law  governing  contro- 
versies arising  over  maritime  affairs,  discloses  many  instances 
of  similarity  in  important  provisions.  To  ascertain  the  rela- 
tionship,  however,    between   maritime   laws   appearing   under 

lAbdy  and  Walker,  commenting  on  Schrader's  rendering  of  this  passage, 
"  because  these  are  not  the  common  property  of  the  whole  world,"  state 
that  •'  the  use  of  the  open  sea  is  common  to  all  the  world ;  the  use  of  the 
seashore  and  that  portion  of  the  sea  close  to  the  shore  is,  by  universal 
agreement,  public;  that  is,  open  to  all  members  of  the  nation  occupying 
the  adjacent  coimtry,  but  not  open  to  the  world  in  general." 


THE    INSTITUTION    OF    MARITIME    LAW  29 

diverse  sovereignties  and  at  different  epochs ;  to  trace  tlie  ulti- 
mate source  of  a  specific  regulation,  frequently  becomes  an 
almost  insuperable  task.  To  state,  conclusively,  that  one  body 
of  law  derived  much  of  its  inspiration  from  another,  because  of 
the  similarity  existing  between  certain  provisions,  is  mislead- 
ing, since  this  similarity  may  well  be  due,  not  to  imitation, 
but  to  the  innate,  universal  justice  of  the  particular  regu- 
lations. 

Early  sea-laws  sought  to  prevent  the  overloading  of  sliips. 
The  Statute  of  Ancona,  and  the  Consulate  of  the  Sea,  provided 
that  a  mark  should  be  placed  on  the  exterior  of  the  hull  to  indi- 
cate the  maximum  load  which  the  vessel  was  entitled  to  carry. 
(Ashburner,  "  Khodian  Sea-Law,"  pg.  clvii.)  Similarly,  in 
1876,  the  Merchant  Shipping  Act  of  Great  Britain  prescribed 
the  universal  application  of  the  Plimsoll  mark  to  all  vessels 
within  British  jurisdiction,  as  a  means  of  indicating  the  limit  to 
which  a  ship  might  be  safely  loaded.  Were  it  necessary  to  de- 
termine the  source  of  the  British  regulation,  could  it  be  conclu- 
sively stated  to  be  within  the  Statute  of  Ancona,  the  Consulate 
of  the  Sea,  or  other  early  law  of  the  sea  ? 

The  importance  of  considering  and  comparing  these  primi- 
tive maritime  laws  arises  from  the  fact  that  many  of  the  prin- 
ciples therein  enunciated  have  survived  the  attrition  of  cen- 
turies, thus  demonstrating  their  inherent  soundness.  Whether 
conceived  independently,  or  handed  down  by  adoption  and  adap- 
tation they  have  ultimately  become  incorporated  in  modem 
maritime  law  in  a  form  consistent  with  the  present  necessities  of 
commerce.  The  existence  of  sea-laws  during  the  primitive 
phases  of  maritime  activity  clearly  demonstrates  that  the  neces- 
sity for  the  adequate  government  of  commerce  by  law  was  early 
recognized,  and  that  the  degree  of  legal  development  was  com- 
mensurate with  the  expansion  of  maritime  interests.  Though 
certain  of  these  early  sea-laws  were  not  framed,  specifically,  to 
assure  the  unrestrained  navigation  of  the  sea,  yet,  in  effect,  this 
liberty  was  attained,  since  these  regulations  were  designed  to 
prevent  anarchy  on  the  common  highway  of  nations.     Only  the 


30  INTERNATIONAL    WATERWAYS    * 

presence  of  law  among  the  conflicting  interests  of  the  various 
nationalities  could  secure  liberty  and  an  approximate  equality 
of  opportunity  for  all. 

Development  of  Sea-Law  within  the  Mediterranean. — 
The  sea-laws  of  Khodes  constitute  the  earliest,  extant  system 
of  maritime  law,  being  compiled  during  the  ninth  century  b.  c. 
(Pardessus,  "  Collection  de  lois  maritimes,"  I,  35,  209 ;  Text  of 
the  Rhodian  Law,  I,  231.)  (Selden,  "  Mare  Clausum,"  Lib.  I, 
cap.  10.)  (Phillipson,  "  The  International  Law  and  Custom  of 
Ancient  Greece  and  Rome,"  II,  379.)^ 

Since  antiquity,  merchants  from  all  quarters  of  the  known 
world  had  met  on  the  island  of  Rhodes,  where  an  extensive 
and  lucrative  trade  developed.  (Pardessus,  "  Collection  de  lois 
maritimes,"  I,  153 ;  quoting  Isidore  of  Seville,  "  Originum," 
Lib.  IV,  cap.  xvii,  De  legibus  rhodiis.)  The  resources  of 
Rhodes  increased  with  this  expanding  trade,  affording  oppor- 
tunity for  a  further  extension  of  Rhodian  influence  throughout 
the  Eastern  Mediterranean;  while  the  necessities  of  this  trade 
demanded  an  adequate  body  of  law  to  ensure  protection  for  the 
various  interests.  Rhodes  ultimately  became  the  chief  naval 
power  of  the  ^gean  Sea,  reaching  its  maximum  strength  in  the 
years  immediately  following  the  Second  Punic  War,  and  this 
maritime  code  was  extended  to  regulate  all  Grecian  commercial 
relationships.  (Torr,  "Rhodes  in  Ancient  Times,"  pg.  40.) 
(Phillipson,  "  The  International  Law  and  Custom  of  Ancient 
Greece  and  Rome,"  II,  379.)  (Pardessus,  "  Collection  de  lois 
maritimes,"  I,  35.) 

But  the  general  acceptance  of  the  comprehensive  Rhodian 
Law  was  not  due  solely  to  the  development  of  naval  power,  nor 
to  the  great  influence  exerted  by  Rhodes  in  maritime  enter- 

1  While  admitting  the  existence  of  the  Rhodian  Sea-Law  at  a  very  early 
date,  Ashburner  objects  to  the  view  that  it  was  framed  into  statutes  as 
early  as  the  ninth  century,  declaring  that  "  of  the  maritime  law  of  the 
Mediterranean  states,  no  communal  statute  goes  back  before  the  middle 
of  the  twelfth  century,  while  the  Rhodian  Sea-Law  was  framed  (by  a 
private  hand)  about  600  or  800  a.  d.,  that  is,  from  three  to  five  hundred 
years  previously.  However,  it  is  certain  that  the  law  existed  long  before 
it  was  put  into  these  statutes."     "  Rhodian  Sea-Law,"  pg.  cxv. 


THE    INSTITUTION    OF    MAEITIME    LAW  31 

prise,  but  must  be  ascribed  largely  to  tbe  evident  justice  of 
the  provisions  of  the  Law,  which  commended  them  to  people 
of  diverse  nationalities,  securing  their  ultimate  adoption. 
Long  after  Rhodian  commercial  supremacy  had  ceased  to  ex- 
ist, the  provisions  of  the  Law  endured.  At  a  later  time  the 
Ehodian  Law  furnished  many  of  the  principles  incorporated 
in  the  Roman  Maritime  Law,  while  in  certain  parts  of  the 
Mediterranean  it  represented  the  living  law  as  late  as  the  fif- 
teenth century.  (Phillipson,  "  The  International  Law  and  Cus- 
tom of  Ancient  Greece  and  Rome,"  II,  380.) -"^ 

It  is  noteworthy  that  certain  principles  expressed  in  the 
Rhodian  Law  appear  at  subsequent  periods  in  the  customary 
law  or  statutes  of  various  governments ;  as  in  the  Roman  Law, 
the  Byzantine  Law,  the  Rolls  of  Oleron ;  but  this  similarity 
does  not  necessarily  afford  conclusive  evidence  of  common  deri- 
vation from  the  Rhodian  Law.  The  likeness  may  well  arise 
through  an  independent  development  of  justice,  rather  than 
by  acceptance  or  adaptation  of  the  Rhodian  Sea-Law  to  fulfill 
the  necessities  of  a  later  age."  (Ashburner,  "  The  Rhodian  Sea- 
Law,"  pg.  cxv.) 

1  Selden,  "  De  dominio  maris,^'  Bk.  I,  cap.  10,  and  Zoiiche,  "  The  Juris- 
diction of  the  English  Admiralty,"  pg.  3,  agree  that  the  Rhodian  Sea-Law 
was  afterwards  inserted  into  tlie  body  of  the  Roman  Civil  Law  by  the 
Emperor  Justinian. 

Ashburner,  "  Rhodian  Sea-Law,"  pg.  xlix,  notes  that  in  none  of  the 
manuscripts  is  the  substance  of  the  Rhodian  Sea-Law  changed.  In  re- 
spect to  its  legal  effects,  it  remained  substantially  tlie  same  from  begin- 
ning to  end. 

2  Selden,  "Mare  Clausum";  Azuni,  "Maritime  Law";  and  Kent,  "Com- 
mentaries," II,  215,  511,  agree  in  declaring  that  Rome  adopted  the  mari- 
time law  of  Rhodes,  but  this  statement  is  difficult  of  proof. 

Benedict,  Yale  Law  Revieir,  1909,  pg.  232,  states  that  within  the  Roman 
code  there  is  only  one  stipulation  which  can  be  said  with  assurance  to  be 
derived  from  the  Rhodian  Sea-Law,  the  authenticity  being  supported  by 
the  statement  of  the  compilers  of  the  Institutes  of  Justinian.  It  appears 
in  practically  all  the  important  mediaeval  sea-laws  and  provides :  "  jf  for 
the  sake  of  lightening  a  ship  in  danger  at  sea,  an  ejection  shall  take 
place,  that  which  was  given  up  for  the  general  good,  shall  be  replaced 
according  to  the  proportion  of  what  was  saved,  by  a  general  contribu- 
tion." To  be  operative  it  was  necessary  to  prove  that  the  ship  was  in  the 
immediate  danger  of  perishing  with  the  cargo;  that  the  decision  of  the 
Captain  to  eject  a  portion  of  the  cargo  was  preceded  by  a  conference  with 


32  INTERNATIONAL    WATERWAYS 

If  the  Rhodian  Law  was  in  fact  incorporated  in  that  of  Rome, 
it  was  not  transferred  in  its  original  form  or  language;  conse- 
quently it  is  impossible  to  determine  what  provisions  are  orig- 
inal and  what  constitute  later  additions  or  modifications.  In 
the  present  survey,  however,  the  interest  in  the  Rhodian  Law 
and  other  early  codes  chiefly  centers  in  the  influence  which 
they  exerted  in  securing  the  unrestricted  navigation  of  the 
sea. 

It  was  from  Rome,  in  the  period  when  the  Imperial  jurists 
enjoyed  a  three-fold  duty  as  legislators,  expounders,  and  ad- 
ministrators of  the  law  for  the  whole  civilized  world,  that  the 
first  positive  declaration  of  the  free  and  common  enjoyment 
of  the  sea  was  enunciated,  exhibiting  a  liberal  spirit  and  a  de- 
velopment toward  a  clearer  appreciation  of  international 
rights  and  obligations,  in  profound  contrast  to  the  sea-trading 
laws  of  Carthage  which  had  formerly  restricted  maritime  en- 
terprise throughout  the  western  Mediterranean.^ 

The  expansion  of  the  Roman  Empire  until  it  eventually  em- 
braced the  Mediterranean,  transforming  its  political  character 
to  that  of  an  inland  sea,  might  warrant  the  interpretation  that 
this  statute  comtemplated  freedom  of  navigation  on  the  high 
seas  solely  for  the  nationals  of  Rome.  The  extension  of  Roman 
maritime  enterprise,  however,  to  the  Euxine,  Arabian,  the 
N'orth  Sea,  and  upon  the  Atlantic,  clearly  demonstrates  that 
unrestricted  use  and  intercommunication  by  various  nationali- 
ties was  intended.     The  beneficent  effect  of  such  a  body  of  law 

his  officers  and  crew;  and  that  the  ship  and  cargo  were  saved  by  this 
means. 

Schomberg,  "  Laws  of  Rhodes,"  pg.  38,  states  that  both  William  the 
Conqueror  and  Henry  I  accepted  this  principle  of  the  Rhodian  Law  relat- 
ing to  ejections,  incorporating  it  within  the  statutes  of  the  realm. 

Twiss,  "Black  Book  of  the  Admiralty,"  Vol.  I,  Ixx;  text  of  "Law  of 
Ejection,"  Vol.  I,  pg.  127. 

1  Montesquieu,  "  Spirit  of  Laws,"  Bk.  XXI,  chap,  xi ;  "  The  la,w  of  na- 
tions which  prevailed  at  Carthage  was  very  extraordinary;  all  strangers 
who  traded  to  Sardinia  and  toward  the  Pillars  of  Hercules  this  haughty 
republic  sentenced  to  be  drowned.  .  .  .  Being  mistress  of  the  coasts  of 
Africa  which  are  washed  by  the  Mediterranean,  she  extended  herself  along 
the  ocean."  Pardessus,  "  Collection  de  lois  maritimes,"  I,  53 ;  text  of 
the  "Roman  Law,"  I,  85. 


THE    INSTITUTION    OF    MARITIME    LAW  83 

is  increased  manifestly  when  it  is  adopted  and  administered 
by  the  governments  of  other  independent  nations.  After  the 
downfall  of  the  Roman  Empire,  the  states  of  Southern  Europe 
continued  to  observe  the  principles  proclaimed  in  the  Institutes 
of  Justinian,  modified  in  conformity  with  the  existing  maritime 
conditions.  In  acquiring  the  character  of  international  law, 
through  general  acceptance,  it  assured  better  facilities  and 
freedom  for  all  who  engaged  in  enterprise  on  the  world's  water- 
ways. (Twiss,  "  Black  Book  of  the  Admiralty,"  II,  pg. 
xl.) 

JSTo  communal  statute,  comprising  the  maritime  law  of  the 
Mediterranean  states,  appears  to  antedate  the  Ordinances  of 
Trani  (compiled  1063  a.  d.),  but  since  the  acceptance  of  this 
date  as  authentic  is  subject  to  serious  doubt,  (Ashbumer, 
"  Rhodian  Sea-Law,"  pg.  cxv.),  the  most  ancient  extant  source 
of  modem  maritime  law,  beyond  question  of  dispute,  is  embodied 
in  the  Tables  of  Amalfi,  which  undoubtedly  perpetuated  cer- 
tain institutes  of  Justinian.^ 

The  authority  of  this  code  was  acknowledged  throughout 
these  seas  by  all  maritime  states  until  the  lapse  of  approxi- 
mately two  hundred  years  had  brought  about  changed  condi- 
tions, and  the  development  of  more  powerful  states;  causes 
which  contributed  to  render  the  Amalphitan  Law  inapplicable.^ 

1  "  With  regard  to  the  '  Tabula  Amalphitana,'  recently  discovered,  critics 
agree  in  considering  the  Latin  chapters  of  it  to  be  of  an  earlier  date  than 
the  Italian  chapters,  and  there  is  nothing  in  the  Latin  chapters  which 
precludes  referring  them  to  the  eleventh  century,  when  there  is  no  doubt 
that  Amalphi  was  in  a  state  of  high  commercial  prosperity."  Twiss, 
"  Black  Book  of  the  Admiralty,"  IV,  cxxvii. 

2  The  following  comprise  the  more  important  mediaeval  sea-laws  which 
appeared  in  the  IMediterranean,  and  may  be  consulted  in  Pardessus,  "  Col- 
lection de  lois  maritimes,"  6  volumes,  as  noted: 

1.  "Ordinances  of  Trani,"  1063  A.  D.,  Vol.  V,  237-251. 

The  date  given  is  disputed,  but  this  is  the  date  appearing  in  the 
text.     Ashburner,  "  Rhodian  Sea-Law,"  pg.  cxxi. 

Pardessus  gives  both  the  French  and  Italian  texts. 

These  Ordinances  are  a  series  of  decisions  made  by  the  Consuls 
of  the  Sea;  those  most  versed  in  maritime  affairs;  in  the  city  of 
Trani  on  the  Adriatic,  and  are  considered  by  Twiss  to  be  the  most 
ancient,  extant  source  of  modem  Maritime  Law.  Twiss,  "  Black 
Book  of  Admiralty,"  II,  xliii-iv. 


34  INTERNATIONAL    WATERWAYS 

As  the  authority  of  the  Law  of  Amalfi  declined,  various  Med- 
iterranean states  discordantly  attempted  to  administer  justice, 
and  the  resulting  chaotic  condition  continued  until  the  Con- 
solato  del  Mare  gained  an  authority  even  greater  than  that  for- 
merly enjoyed  by  the  Tables  of  Amalfi.  The  Consulate  of  the 
Sea  marks  the  highest  development  of  the  mediaeval  statutes, 
reg-ulating  traffic  on  the  seas,  destined  to  be  produced  upon 
Mediterranean  shores.  This  celebrated  collection  of  maritime 
ordinances  and  customs  was  first  published  at  Barcelona 
(1494),  and  embodies  the  rules  obsei'ved  by  the  commercial 
judges  (Consuls),  throughout  the  Mediterranean,  in  their  dis- 
pensation of  justice.  Within  the  consular  court  at  Barcelona, 
these  Customs  of  the  Sea  were  accorded  the  force  of  law. 
(Twiss,  "  Black  Book  of  the  Admiralty,"  II,  Ixyi.y 

2.  Tables  of  Amalfi,  consult  Ashburner,  •'  Rhodian  Sea-Law,"  pg.  cxx. 

The  Latin  part  of  these  Tables  may  have  existed  since  the  period 
when  Amalfi  was  an  independent  duchy;   that  is  prior  to  1131  A.  d. 

3.  "Ordinance  of  Barcelona,"  1258  a.  d.,  Latin  text,  V,  339-46. 

4.  "  Statutes  of   Cattaro,"   early   fourteenth  century,  Latin  text,   V,   17, 

96-98. 

5.  "  Statutes  of  Pera,"  early  fourteenth  century,  Latin  text,  VI,  587. 

6.  "  Statutes  of  Zara,"  early  fourteenth  century,  Latin  text,  VI,  605-22. 

7.  "Statutes  of   Ancona,"    1397   A.  d.,   French  and  Italian  text,  V,   116- 

198. 

8.  "  Customs  of  Bari,"  Latin  text,  VI,  625-26. 

9.  "  Consulate  of  the  Sea,"  end  of  the  fourteenth  century. 

Belonging  to   the  second   stage   in   the   history  of  maritime   law. 
Text    given    in :     "  Pardessus,"    II,    1-49 ;    49-368.     Twiss,    '♦  Black 
Book  of  the  Admiralty,"  Vol.  III. 
10.  "Maritime    Law    of    Venice,"    Pardessus,    Vol.    V,    chapter    xxix,    pg. 
1-98. 
The  dates  at  which  these  various  laws  were  put  in  statute  form  appear 
in  many  instances  within  the  manuscript  and  may  be  taken  in  most  in- 
stances as  authentic,  except  in  the  doubtful  case  of  the  "  Ordinances  of 
Trani,"  1063  a.  D.     Ashburner,  "Rhodian  Sea-Law,"  pg.  cxx. 

1  In  the  endeavor  to  dispel  the  confusion  which  had  arisen  following  the 
abandonment  of  the  Tables  of  Amalfi,  a  general  assembly  was  called, 
and,  with  the  Tables  of  Amalfi  as  a  basis,  proceeded  to  digest  into  one 
code  the  maritime  laws  of  the  different  communities.  Regulations  from 
the  sea-codes  of  Aragon,  Barcelona,  Genoa,  Marseilles,  Morea,  Pisa,  and 
Venice  were  thus  embodied  in  the  Consulate  of  the  Sea.  Zouche,  "  The 
Jurisdiction  of  the  Admiralty  of  England,"  pg.  5. 

Ashburner,  "  Rhodian  Sea-Law,"  pg.  cxx,  expresses  a  decidedly  con- 
trary opinion,  describing  the  Consulate  as  a  very  verbose  document  erected 
around   the   obscure   nucleus   of   ancient  custom,  with   every  rule   accom- 


THE    INSTITUTION    OF    MAEITIME    LAW  35 

Many  of  the  customs  embodied  were  derived  from  very  early 
practices,  and  the  influence  exerted  was  sucli  that  for  a  long 
period  the  Consulate  was  recognized  as  the  law  governing  prizes 
in  many  states,  including  England.  (Robinson,  "  Consulate  del 
Mare  relating  to  Prize  Law.")  (Pardessus,  "  Collection  de 
lois  maritimes,"  II,  1-368.  )i 

But,  being  designed  to  govern  maritime  controversies  arising 
in  the  Mediterranean,  the  Consulate  was  seriously  limited  in 
acquiring  more  extended  application,  and,  for  this  reason,  the 
mediaeval  sea-laws  instituted  upon  the  Atlantic  gained  pre- 
eminence. The  publication  of  the  Rolls  of  Oleron  had  an  im- 
portant incidental  influence,  disassociated  from  the  wide-spread 
acceptance  accorded  them,  since  the  existence  of  these  sea-laws 
demonstrated  to  the  maritime  world  that  an  extensive  shipping 
enterprise  was  being  developed  beyond  the  Pillars  of  Hercules. 
Maritime  interest,  concentrated  no  longer  in  the  Mediter- 
ranean, was  carried  out  upon  the  western  sea,  where  soon  it  was 
to  enjoy  unprecedented  opportunity. 

Similarly  with  all  the  sea-laws  developing  prior  to  the  dis- 
covery of  America,  the  Laws  of  Oleron  sought  to  protect  both 
private  and  national  interests  engaged  in  maritime  undertak- 
ings, and  to  secure  enjoyment  of  the  seas.  The  Laws  insti- 
tuted at  Oleron  gained  the  esteem  and  acceptance  of  other  sov- 

panied  by  elaborate  reasons,  mostly  futile;  the  greater  part  of  the  text 
comprising  ingenious  suggestions  by  learned  men,  and  concludes  by  de- 
claring that  it  is  doubtful  if  its  stipulations  were  ever  observed  by  mari- 
ners or  enforced  in  any  court. 

1  Since  serious  limitation  to  the  right  of  the  unrestricted  navigation  of 
the  open  sea  may  arise  through  belligerent  activity,  a  case,  arising  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  twelfth  century  (1164  a.  0. ),  may  be  cited  as  evidence 
of  the  early  endeavor  to  protect  neutral  ships  in  the  exercise  of  this  right, 
provided  such  vessels  were  not  engaged  in  the  service  of  the  enemy;  the 
right  of  detaining  a  neutral  vessel  and  confiscating  any  enemy  property 
found  on  board  being  recognized  by  Christian  and  Mohammedan  powers, 
alike.  Consequently,  when  the  Pisans,  being  at  war  with  Genoa,  seized 
a  cargo  of  alum  aboard  an  Egyptian  ship,  alleging  that  it  was  the  prop- 
erty of  Genoese  merchants,  they  were  constrained  to  release  it  upon  sub- 
sequent proof  that  it  was  neutral  property.  Pardessus,  *'  Collection  de 
lois  maritimes,"  II,  cxxii. 


36  INTERNATIONAL    WATERWAYS 

ereignties,  because  of  their  reason  and  equity.  (Twiss,  "  Black 
Book  of  the  Admiralty,"  Vol.  I,  pg.  89,  presents  the  text  of  the 
Laws  of  Oleron.) 

Conflicting  opinions  exist  respecting  the  origin  of  the  Rolls 
of  Oleron,  and  particularly  concerning  the  interest  which 
Richard  I  had  in  their  preparation  and  publication.  Schom- 
berg  declares  that  Richard  I,  while  returning  from  the  Holy 
Land  (1194),  stopped  for  a  period  on  the  Island  of  Oleron  in 
the  Bay  of  Biscay,  which  had  served  as  an  important  base  for 
the  great  fleet  which  he  had  despatched  to  the  eastern  Mediter- 
ranean during  the  second  year  of  his  reigii.  Realizing  the  need 
of  a  maritime  code  for  that  region  of  the  world,  inasmuch  as 
the  Consulato  del  Mare  and  the  Amalphitan  Table  applied 
chiefly  to  the  conditions  existing  among  the  states  on  the  Medi- 
terranean, he  commanded  that  one  should  be  prepared. 
(Schomberg,  "  Laws  of  Rhodes,"  pg.  54.) 

Sir  John  Burroughs,  at  an  earlier  date,  expressed  a  similar 
conviction  (Soveraignty  of  the  Seas,  pg.  17),  declaring  that 
"the  famous  Lawes  of  Olleron  (which  after  the  Rhodian  Lawes 
were  antiquated  and  absolete)  have  now  well  neare  500  yeares 
been  received  by  all  the  Christian  world  for  regiilating  Sea 
aifaires,  and  deciding  maritime  controversies,  were  first  de- 
clared by  King  Richard  the  First  (a  King  of  England)  at  his 
returne  from  the  Holy  Land,  and  by  him  caused  to  be  published 
in  the  Isle  of  Olleron."^ 

But  Sir  Travers  Twiss  rejects  this  view,  showing  that  the 
Rolls  of  Oleron  are  not  ordinances,  but  judgments,  and  conse- 
quently that  their  character  does  not  sustain  the  supposition  that 
Richard  I  caused  them  to  be  prepared  and  published.  Ad- 
mitting that  Richard  I,  upon  his  return  to  England,  may 
have   sanctioned   the   observance    of   these   judgments,    which 

1  A  memorandum  of  12  Edward  III  states  that  the  laws  and  statutes 
"were  corrected,  interpreted  and  declared,  and  were  published  in  the 
Island  of  Oleron  by  Lord  Richard,  formerly  King  of  England,  in  his 
return  from  the  Holy  Land "  to  maintain  peace  and  justice  amongst 
people  of  every  nation  passing  through  the  Sea  of  England.  Twiss, 
"  Black  Book  of  the  Admiralty,"  Vol.  I,  Ivii. 


THE    HSrSTITUTION    OF    MAEITIME    LAW  37 

had  already  been  published,  Twiss  concludes ;  "  We  know  not 
how  it  happened  that  Eleanor  of  Guienne  or  Eichard  I  of 
England  was  able  to  collect  together  a  body  of  maritime  judg- 
ments, which  proved  to  be  so  faithful  and  so  complete  a  mirror 
of  the  customs  observed  in  the  trade  between  the  ports  of  the 
Atlantic  sea-board  of  Erance  and  those  of  the  rest  of  Europe, 
that  they  have  been  accepted  as  law  for  centuries  in  the  ports 
of  the  North  Sea,  and  of  the  Baltic  equally  as  of  the  Mediter- 
ranean Sea,  unless  it  was  that  the  maritime  court  of  Oleron 
was  in  advance  of  other  courts  in  keeping  a  careful  record  of 
the  decisions  of  its  judges,  and  so  possessed  a  body  of  judge- 
made  law  which  would  have  been  sought  for  in  vain  in  the 
neighboring  courts  of  Bordeaux  and  of  Eochelle."  (Twiss, 
"Black  Book  of  the  Admiralty,"  IV,  pg.  cxxix.) 

Certain  similarities,  existing  between  the  Rolls  of  Oleron 
and  the  Rhodian  Law,  have  given  cause  for  speculation  and 
debate  among  publicists  in  the  endeavor  to  determine  whether 
the  stipulations  under  examination  were  derived  from  the  ear- 
lier code  or  were  the  result  of  an  independent  development. 
The  eighth  article  of  the  Rolls  of  Oleron  exhibits  a  close  simi- 
larity to  the  provision  of  the  Rhodian  Law,  respecting  an  ejec- 
tion of  cargo  to  survive  a  storm  at  sea,  stipulating :  "  Also,  a 
shyp  be  freyght  to  goo  to  London  or  els  where  and  chaunceth 
the  tourment  taketh  it  in  the  see,  and  it  cannot  escape  but  yf 
the  goodes  be  cast  out,  the  maister  ought  to  say,  '  Hates,  it  be- 
hoveth  to  cast  over  these  goodes  to  save  the  shyp.'  "  Continu- 
ing, the  law  provides  that  the  master  and  three  of  his  com- 
panions must  take  oath  that  this  act  was  necessary  to  save  the 
ship,  goods  cast  over  being  appraised  at  the  value  of  those 
saved,  and  indemnified  by  a  pro  rata  assessment  on  the  salvaged 
goods ;  for,  "  when  it  happens  that  they  make  jettison  from  a 
shyp,  it  is  well  written  at  Rome  that  all  the  merchaundise  and 
goodes  contained  in  the  ship  oughte  to  contribute  pounde  for 
pounde."  (Twiss,  "  Black  Book  of  the  Admiralty,"  Vol.  I,  jig. 
97,  127.)i 
1  Other  articles  in  the  Rolls  of  Oleron  which  are  in  accord  with  the 


88  INTERN ATIOISTAL    WATERWAYS 

The  consideration  of  the  historical  origin  of  the  Kolls  of 
Oleron  becomes  of  secondary  importance  in  comparison  with 
the  prestige  accorded  these  judgments  through  their  general 
adoption  by  other  maritime  states.  As  the  wisdom  and  justice 
of  the  provisions  within  the  Rolls  of  Oleron,  regulating  the 
traffic  of  the  seas,  became  more  generally  understood  and  ap- 
preciated, various  European  sovereigns  admitted  the  operation 
of  these  laws  within  the  maritime  courts  of  the  realm,  with  the 
result  that  the  Rolls  of  Oleron  acquired  the  authority  of  inter- 
national law. 

As  early  as  the  thirteenth  century,  Alphonso  X  of  Castile 
established  the  Rolls,  as  a  body  of  positive  law  for  the  settle- 
ment of  disputes  arising  in  all  maritime  affairs;  the  judges  be- 
ing specifically  directed  to  observe  these  regulations  in  adjudi- 
cating causes  between  merchants  and  mariners.  (Twiss, 
"Black  Book  of  the  Admiralty,"  Vol.  I,  Ixviii.) 

In  1364,  Charles  V  of  France,  upon  admitting  the  Cas- 
tilians  to  the  trade  of  the  ports  of  Leure  and  Harfleur,  pro- 
vided that  all  disputes  arising  should  seek  redress  according  to 
the  Laws  of  Oleron ;  "  selon  les  coustumes  de  la  mer  et  les  droiz 
de  Layron  (Oleron)  dehors."  (Twiss,  "  Black  Book  of  the  Ad- 
miralty," Vol.  I,  Ixiv.) 

In  England,  the  maritime  (Admiralty)  courts  of  the  realm 
recognized  the  Laws  of  Oleron  as  binding,  beginning  with  the 
twelfth  year  of  the  reign  of  Edward  III.  (Twiss,  "  Black  Book 
of  the  Admiralty,"  I,  Ixi.)  ^ 

Rhodian  Law  provide:  (Art.  26)  "where  a  ship  is  engaged  entirely  by  a 
merchant,  the  master  cannot  take  any  thing  else  on  board,  except  neces- 
sary provision  for  the  voyage,"  similar  to  Art.  xxii  of  the  Rhodian  Law; 
and  (Art.  25.),  "if  a  merchant  is  disappointed  in  getting  a  ship  (i.e.  the 
master  does  not  keep  his  agreement  to  carry  the  goods),  then  the  mer- 
chant can  secure  damages  from  the  master,"  similar  to  Art.  xx  of  the 
Rhodian  Law.  Pardessus,  Vol.  I,  pgs.  248-249;  Twiss,  "Black  Book  of 
the  Admiralty,"  Vol.  I,  pgs.  121,  123. 

1  Respecting  the  administration  of  maritime  law  by  the  courts  of  Eng- 
land, Twiss  considers  that  there  is  unimpeachable  evidence  that  before 
the  Admiralty  jurisdiction  was  established  in  England;  that  is,  before 
causes  involving  contracts  and  torts  on  the  high  seas  were  assigned  to 


THE    INSTITUTION    OF    MABITIME    LAW  6d 

Similarly,  the  Judgments  of  Damme,  which  were  observed 
in  Damme,  Brugge,  and  elsewhere  in  Flanders  during  the  four- 
teenth century,  followed  explicitly  the  twenty-four  articles  of 
the  KoUs  of  Oleron,  while  elsewhere  throughout  the  Baltic,  the 
important  trading  cities  incorporated  these  provisions  within 
their  communal  maritime  law.  (Twiss,  "  Black  Book  of  the 
Admiralty,"  Vol.  I,  Ixiii  (note  3),  89;  Vol.  II,  xlvii.)  (Par- 
dessus.  Collection  de  lois  maritimes.  Vol.  I,  355,  (text)  371.) 
Twiss  mentions  a  curious  Flemish  text  of  the  Rolls  of  Oleron, 
known  as  the  Purple  Book  of  Bruges ;  preserved  in  the  archives 
at  Bruges ;  prepared  in  the  fourteenth  century,  making  certain 
changes  in  the  names  of  the  ports.  Indeed,  throughout  the 
countries  bordering  on  the  Atlantic  Ocean  and  the  jSTorth  Sea, 
the  Judgments  of  Oleron  were  observed  as  the  law  of  the  sea, 
maintaining  an  authority  comparable  to  that  exercised  in  a 
former  time  by  the  Rhodian  Law.  (Twiss,  "  Black  Book  of  the 
Admiralty,"  Vol.  II,  xlix.) 

The  Laws  of  Wisbuy,  developing  within  the  confines  of  the 
Baltic,  constitute  a  partial  exception  to  the  general  authority  of 
the  Rolls  of  Oleron.  A  portion  of  these  laws  have  been  ac- 
corded an  antiquity  greater  even  than  those  of  Oleron.  Be- 
tween these  two  codes  there  exists  a  notable  resemblance,  par- 
ticularly in  the  provisions  of  the  following  articles : 

the  Admiralty  Court;  that  there  were  courts  in  England,  which  admin- 
istered the  customary  marine  law  equally  to  the  foreign  and  British  mer- 
chants and  mariners.  The  Domesday  of  England  discloses  that  in  cer- 
tain of  the  maritime  boroughs  there  were  courts  which  sat  from  tide  to  tide 
to  administer  the  customary  law  of  the  sea  to  passing  mariners.  The 
Domesday  of  Ipswich  is  evidence  that  this  practice  was  observed  in  the 
time  of  Richard  I,  the  earliest  extant  record  of  any  court  which  sat  for  this 
purpose  in  England.  This  court  sat  daily  in  the  borough  of  Ipswich,  ad- 
ministering the  maritime  law  between  strangers,  and  between  natives  and 
strangers.     Twiss,  "  Black  Book  of  the  Admiralty,"  Vol.  II,  viii,  xxxvii. 

According  to  Twiss,  the  ordinance  of  Edward  III  marks  the  true 
starting  point  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Admiralty  court  in  civil  suits: 

"  Item,  any  contract  made  between  merchant  and  merchant,  or  merchant 
and  mariner  beyond  the  seas,  or  within  the  fflood  marke,  shal  be  tryed  be- 
fore the  Admirall  and  noe  where  else  by  the  ordinance  of  the  said  King 
Edward  and  his  lords."  Twiss,  "  Black  Book  of  the  Admiralty,"  Vol.  I, 
part  C,  Art.  21. 


40  INTERNATIONAL    WATERWAYS 


Oleron. 
1,2. 

Wisbuj 
13,  14,  15. 

7. 

8,  9,  10. 

19. 

12,  20,  21,  38. 

14. 

26,  50,  67,  70. 

18. 

31. 

19. 

32. 

(Pardessus,  "  Collection  de  lois  maritimes,"  Vol.  I,  425 ;  text. 
Vol.  I,  463.)      (Schomberg,  "  The  Laws  of  Ehodes,"  pg.  66.) 

Twiss  considers  that  the  maritime  laws  of  Wisbuy  may  be 
classed  with  the  Judgments  of  Oleron  and  with  the  Customs 
of  the  Sea,  which  were  collected  and  digested  into  the  Consulate 
of  the  Sea  of  Barcelona,  thereby  forming  a  continuous  chain 
of  maritime  law,  extending  from  the  easternmost  parts  of  the 
Baltic,  through  the  ISTorth  Sea  and  along  the  coasts  of  the  At- 
lantic to  the  Straits  of  Gibraltar,  and  thence  to  the  furthest 
eastern  shores  of  the  Mediterranean.  (Twiss,  "  Black  Book 
of  the  Admiralty,"  Vol.  IV,  xxvi.)i 

While  controversies  respecting  the  origin  of  the  various  sea- 
laws  lead  to  interesting  discoveries,  the  real  significance  arises 
from  the  wide-spread  acceptance  accorded  these  salutary  laws, 
and  the  beneficial  influence  exerted  by  them  over  commerce  in 

1  Welwood,  "  Abridgement  of  all  Sea-Laws,"  pg.  100,  asserts  that  the 
Laws  of  Wisbuy,  amongst  the  nations  beyond  the  Rhine,  are  identical  with 
the  Laws  of  Oleron,  being  translated  into  Dutch  for  the  use  of  the  sea  in 
those  regions. 

Zouche,  "  The  Jurisdiction  of  the  Admiralty  of  England,"  pg.  6,  en- 
dorses this  conviction. 

Twiss,  however,  considers  that  the  Laws  of  Wisbuy  are  composite  in 
origin,  declaring:  "that  it  is  now  placed  beyond  doubt  by  the  researches 
of  learned  scholars  of  the  north  of  Europe,  that  the  so-called  maritime 
laws  of  Wisbuy  are  not  all  of  Gothland  origin,  but  are  a  compilation  of 
laws  derived  from  three  distinct  sources,  which  may  be  fitly  described  as 
a  Baltic  source,  a  Flemish  (or  Gascon)  source,  and  a  Dutch  source.  .  .  . 
Articles  15-19  of  the  Laws  of  Wisbuy  are  of  Flemish  (or  Gascon)  origin 
and  are  beyond  all  question  a  Saxon  or  Low-German  version  of  the 
Judgements  of  Oleron,  translated  either  from  the  so-called  Sea-Laws  of 
Flanders,  which  are  a  Flemish  translation  of  the  '  Jugements  d'Oleron,'  or, 
immediately,  from  a  Gascon  text."  Twiss,  "Black  Book  of  the  Admi- 
ralty," Vol.  IV,  pg.  xxvii. 


THE    INSTITUTION    OP    MARITIME    LAW  41 

all  regions  of  the  sea.  Moreover,  with  the  closing  years  of  the 
fifteenth  century,  maritime  law,  as  developed  throughout  the 
European  coasts,  was  destined  to  exercise  a  still  more  compre- 
hensive influence  over  the  waterways  of  the  world. 


CHAPTER  IV 

DISCOVERY    EXTENDS    MARITIME    ENTERPRISE    THROUGHOUT    THE 

SE\rEN    SEAS 

The  unparalleled  voyages  of  discovery  during  the  fifteenth  and 
sixteenth  centuries,  epitomized  in  the  high  achievements  of 
Vasco  da  Gama,  Magellan,  and  Columbus,  startled  Europe  into 
unprecedented  activity  in  maritime  affairs.  As  the  possibili- 
ties for  commercial  and  industrial  development  within  the 
newly  found  continents  and  the  islands  of  the  sea  came  to  be 
fully  comprehended,  maritime  enterprise  was  extended  through- 
out the  seven  seas,  and  flourished  upon  the  lucrative  trade  with 
distant  lands. 

Wherever  commerce  ventured,  law,  the  maritime  law  as  re- 
ceived in  Europe,  followed,  until  it  embraced  the  world,  serv- 
ing as  a  protection  for  the  various  interests  involved  and  thus 
tending  to  preserve  the  free  enjoyment  of  the  seas. 

Important  incidents  in  the  development  of  sea-borne  trade 
during  the  preceding  centuries  had  comprised :  The  expansion 
of  the  Roman  Empire  until  it  had  absorbed  all  maritime  states 
bordering  on  the  Mediterranean,  thereby  bringing  a  world 
commerce  under  the  control  of  a  single  nation ;  the  destruction 
of  Roman  power  in  the  Occident  through  barbarian  invasion, 
causing  the  immediate  decay  of  commerce  and  of  the  attendant 
benefits  of  civilization;  and  the  Crusades,  exhibiting  a  signifi- 
cant union  of  all  Christendom  in  mutual  endeavor,  and,  inci- 
dentally, reviving  active  interest  in  maritime  affairs.  All 
these  incidents  of  maritime  progress,  however,  were  concerned 
chiefly    with    the    development    of    Mediterranean    commerce. 

1\T«ritimP  pn+prnri=!o  q-nri  iho  inflnp>ri-^p  of  mnri+imp  Iptv  (^^r\  -nM 

p-nrl   of  the  all-sea   route  to  India   disclosed  illi-mitablp  or»Dor- 
tunity. 


DISCOVERY    EXTENDS    MARITIME   ENTERPRISE  43 

Though  noteworthy  voyages  across  the  North  Atlantic, 
achieved  as  early  as  the  tenth  century,  are  credited  the  Norse- 
men, yet  these  exploits  exercised  no  apparent  influence  upon 
the  maritime  destinies  of  the  states  of  Southern  Europe,  which 
still  constituted  the  civilized  world.  ^ 

The  Crusades  afforded  opportunity,  the  first  notable  oppor- 
tunity in  centuries,  for  an  expansion  of  maritime  trade.  This 
trade  consisted  not  alone  in  the  transport  of  the  Crusaders  and 
of  their  necessary  supplies,  but  continued  to  develop,  despite 
the  ultimate  abandonment  of  the  endeavor  to  recover  the  Holy 
Land,  since  there  had  been  opportunity  for  those  dwelling  in 
the  Occident  to  become  aware  of  the  rich  products  of  the  East, 
and  the  demand  for  these  products  increased  rapidly  through- 
out Europe  in  the  years  immediately  following  the  Crusades. 

The  Grov^rth  of  Moslem  Pov^rer  Compels  Maritime  Dis- 
covery.—  The  repulse  of  the  Christians  had  resulted  in  a  cor- 
responding increase  of  the  Moslem  power  upon  the  eastern 
Mediterranean,  and  this  power  was  exercised  to  the  serious 
derangement  of  the  European  trade  routes  with  the  Orient. 
The  demand  for  the  goods  of  the  Ear  East  among  the  states  of 
Europe  was  becoming  all  the  while  more  insistent,  and  yet 
the  conditions  under  which  this  trade  was  carried  on  had  be- 
come so  serious  as  to  amount  to  a  virtual  prohibition.  The 
seizure  of  the  straits  lying  between  Europe  and  Asia  by  the 
Ottoman  Turks  compelled  the  immediate  search  for  an  all-sea 
route  to  the  Indies. 

Constantinople,  the  most  resplendent  city  of  all  Christendom, 
had  fallen  under  the  onslaught  of  the  Turks  (1453),  and  with 
it  passed  the  control  of  the  Bosphorus  and  the  Dardanelles;  a 
control  which  denied  to  the  ships  of  Christian  states  access  to 
the  rich  trade  of  the  Black  Sea  countries  and  the  region  beyond 

1  Fiske,  "Discovery  of  America,"  Vol.  I,  pg.  101,  states  that  there  is  no 
doubt  that  toward  the  end  of  the  tenth  century  people  from  Iceland 
founded  a  colony  in  Greenland,  and  that  ships  from  Greenland,  a  few 
years  later,  made  voyages  along  the  American  coast,  chiefly  for  the  pur- 
pose of  cutting  timber,  and  in  all  probability  voyaging  as  far  south  as 
Massachusetts  Bay,  since  Icelandic  chronicles  have  preserved  accounts  of 
these  voyages. 


44  INTERNATIONAL,    WATERWAYS 

the  Caucasus.  For  more  than  a  century  the  Turks  had  been 
stifling  Christian  trade  within  the  eastern  Mediterranean, 
especially  limiting  the  extension  of  this  trade  into  the  Far  East. 
The  fall  of  Constantinople,  with  the  immediate  exercise  of  Ot- 
toman dominion  and  exclusion  over  the  Black  Sea  route,  pro- 
hibiting further  traffic  in  this  direction  and  menacing  all  the 
existing  trade  routes  with  the  Orient,  threatened  the  continued 
prosperity  and  even  the  existence  of  the  Mediterranean  states. 

At  this  crisis,  the  possibility  of  an  all-sea  route  to  the  Indies, 
avoiding  not  only  the  burdensome  restrictions  of  the  Ottoman 
Turks,  but  also  the  gTeat  cost,  danger,  and  delay  of  land  car- 
riage necessitated  by  all  the  existing  routes,  employed  hitherto, 
directed  an  intense  and  increasing  interest  toward  maritime 
discovery. 

Already  Prince  Henry  the  ISTavigator,  son  of  King  John  of 
Portugal,  had  conceived  the  idea  of  reaching  the  Indies  by 
circumnavigating  Africa,  and,  in  anticipation  of  the  ultimate 
success  of  his  venture,  had  besought  the  Pope,  as  early  as  1441, 
for  the  concession  of  all  lands,  in  perpetuity,  which  should  be 
discovered  while  in  pursuit  of  this  objective. 

ISTot  until  the  voyage  of  Bartholomew  Diaz,  despatched  by 
King  John  of  Portugal,  August,  1486,  did  the  possibility  of 
reaching  the  Indies  by  this  southerly  route  appear  reasonably 
certain.  Diaz  succeeded  in  rounding  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope, 
but  failed  to  persuade  his  sailors  to  pursue  the  voyage  further ; 
so  that  the  ultimate  vindication  of  Prince  Henry's  design  suf- 
fered delay  until  the  triumphant  voyage  of  Vasco  da  Gama 
(1497). 

Ignorance  of  Earth's  Actual  Form  Restricts  Discover- 
ery. —  The  universal  ignorance  with  regard  to  the  actual  forma- 
tion of  the  earth,  whether  flat  or  globular,  operated  as  a  serious 
deterrent  to  the  successful  completion  of  voyages  of  discovery. 
Expeditions  sent  out  by  King  John  of  Portugal  returned 
shortly  Tnth.  alarming  reports  of  impassable  waters  and  noxious 
airs  which  threatened  the  very  lives  of  the  explorers. 

Two  conflicting  theories  respecting  the  earth's  formation  en- 


DISCOVERY    EXTENDS    MARITIME    ENTERPRISE  45 

joyed  scientific  support.  The  theory  of  Pomponious  Mela, 
adopted  by  Prince  Henry  the  Navigator  in  his  project  for 
reaching  the  Indies  by  circumnavigating  Africa,  sought  to 
demonstrate  that  the  earth  consisted  of  the  continents  of  Asia, 
Africa  and  Europe,  completely  surrounded  by  the  limitless  ex- 
panse of  ocean. 

In  opposition,  the  theory  of  Aristotle  continued  to  receive 
substantial  recogiiition.  Centuries  before,  Aristotle  had  de- 
clared that  the  earth  was  globular  in  form  and  that,  conse- 
quently, the  shores  of  Asia  might  be  attained  by  voyaging 
unswervingly  westward  from  the  Pillars  of  Hercules. 

Fiske  ridicules  the  popular  idea  that  Columbus  originated 
the  theory  of  the  spherical  form  of  the  earth,  by  direct  reference 
to  the  existing  facts ;  declaring  that  "  a  gross  historical  blunder 
.  .  .  vitiates  most  of  the  talk  and  a  good  deal  of  the  popular 
writing  about  Columbus.  It  is  evidently  supposed  by  many 
people  that  the  spherical  shape  of  the  earth  was  a  new  idea  in 
his  time;  some  seem  to  think  that  he  originated  it,  or  that  it 
was  opposed  and  ridiculed  by  most  of  his  learned  contempo- 
raries, and  especially  by  the  clergy.  Nothing  could  be  further 
from  the  truth.  The  globular  form  of  the  earth  was  proved  by 
Aristotle  and  after  him  accepted  by  nearly  all  the  ancient 
philosophers;  and,  seventeen  hundred  years  before  Columbus, 
the  geographer  Eratosthenes  declared  that  it  would  be  easy 
enough  to  sail  from  Spain  to  India  on  the  same  parallel,  were 
it  not  for  the  vast  expanse  of  the  Atlantic  Ocean."  (Fiske, 
"Orations,"  pg.  105. )i 

1 "  The  popular  notions  that  the  waters  of  the  tropics  boiled,  that 
demons  and  monsters  awaited  explorers  to  the  westward,  and  that  the 
earth  was  a  great  flat  disk,  did  not  pass  current  among  well-informed 
geographers.  Especially  since  the  revision  of  Ptolemy's  works  in  the 
fifteenth  century,  learned  men  asserted  that  the  earth  was  spherical  in 
shape,  and  they  even  calculated  its  circumference,  erring  only  by  two  or 
three  thousand  miles.  It  was  maintained  repeatedly  that  the  Indies 
formed  the  western  boundary  of  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  and  that  conse- 
quently they  might  be  reached  by  sailing  due  west,  as  well  as  by  travel- 
ling eastward;  but  at  the  same  time  it  was  believed  that  shorter  routes 
might  be  found  northeast  of  Europe,  or  southward  around  Africa." 
Hayes,  "  History  of  Modern  Europe,"  I,  50. 


46  INTERNATIONAL    WATERWAYS 

The  Voyage  of  Columbus. —  These  conflicting  theories  con- 
tinued unsettled,  for,  despite  the  support  accorded  them,  none 
dared  venture  at  any  distance  upon  the  western  ocean  to  de- 
termine the  actual  situation.  It  was  the  imperative  necessity 
of  an  unrestricted  sea  route  to  the  Indies  which  compelled  ad- 
venture upon  the  unknown  waters  of  the  Atlantic,  and  Colum- 
bus, profoundly  convinced  of  the  certainty  of  success,  was, 
through  his  stimulating  entreaties  at  the  court  of  Ferdi- 
nand and  Isabella,  enabled  to  undertake  the  critical  en- 
terprise.^ 

Though  failing  in  his  avowed  object,  Columbus  achieved  a 
triumph,  termed  by  Humboldt  a  conquest  of  reflection,  for  he 
dispelled  the  long-abiding  fear  which  had  deterred  men  from 
venturing  on  the  vast  expanse  of  the  western  ocean,  and  demon- 
strated the  limitless  possibilities  of  sea-voyages.  To  this 
achievement  there  attaches  greater  significance  than  can  be 
accorded  to  the  discovery  of  the  New  World,  if  such  discovery  be 
considered  simply  as  a  territorial  acquisition;  for  henceforth 
commerce  and  civilization  were  destined  to  penetrate  the  most 
remote  regions  of  the  world,  no  longer  restrained  by  baseless 
and  exaggerated  fears. 

Contemporaneous  appreciation  of  the  achievement  of  Colum- 
bus is  well-expressed  in  the  Bull  of  Alexander  VI,  addressed 
to  King  Ferdinand  and  Queen  Isabella :     "  You  chose  our  be- 

The  globe  constructed  by  Martin  Behaim,  showing  no  large  area  of 
land  between  the  western  coast  of  Europe  and  eastern  Asia  (Cathai), 
with  the  exception  of  the  island  of  Zipangu,  serves  as  a  further  substan- 
tiation of  the  contention  that  Columbus  was  aware  of  the  theory  which 
accorded  the  earth  a  spherical  form.     Ravenstein,  "  Martin  Behaim." 

1  "  In  August,  1492,  he  sailed  from  Palos  with  100  men  in  three  small 
ships.  .  .  .  After  a  tiresome  voyage  he  landed  (12  October,  1492)  on  San 
Salvador,  one  of  the  Bahama  Islands.  In  that  bold  voyage  across  the 
trackless  Atlantic  lay  the  greatness  of  Columbus.  He  was  not  attempting 
to  prove  a  theory  that  the  earth  was  spherical  —  that  was  accepted  gener- 
ally by  the  well  informed.  Nor  was  he  in  search  of  a  new  continent. 
The  realization  that  he  had  discovered  not  Asia,  but  a  new  world,  would 
have  been  his  bitterest  disappointment.  He  was  seeking  merely  another 
route  to  the  spices  and  treasures  of  the  East;  and  he  bore  with  him  a 
royal  letter  of  introduction  to  the  great  Khan  of  Cathay."  Hayes,  "  His- 
tory of  Modern  Europe,"  I,  53. 


DISCOVERY    EXTENDS    MARITIME    ENTERPRISE  47 

loved  son,  Christopher  Colon,  whom  you  furnished  with  ships 
and  men  equipped  for  like  designs,  so  as  to  make  diligent  quest 
for  these  far-away,  unknown  countries  through  the  sea,  which 
hitherto  no  one  has  sailed;  who,  in  fine,  with  divine  aid  nor 
without  the  utmost  diligence  sailing  in  the  Ocean  sea,  as  said, 
through  western  waters  toward  the  Indies,  discovered  certain 
very  far-away  islands  and  even  mainlands,  that  hitherto  had 
not  been  discovered  by  others."  (Extract  from  Bull  of  Alex- 
ander VI,  "  Inter  Csetera,"  Blair,  "  Philippine  Islands,"  Vol. 
I,  pg.  98.) 

The  Era  of  Discovery. —  The  magnificent  adventure  of  Co- 
lumbus into  the  ISTew  World  exerted  an  immediate  stimulation 
upon  all  maritime  states.  Expeditions  were  fitted  out  and  de- 
spatched upon  distant  voyages  of  discovery. 

The  necessity  of  securing  unrestricted  trade  routes  to  the 
Indies,  in  order  to  avoid  the  impending,  complete  stagnation 
of  sea-trade  among  the  Mediterranean  states,  had  compelled 
the  undertaking  of  voyages  of  discovery  over  seas ;  but  the  un- 
foreseen discovery  of  the  New  World,  and  the  alluring  possi- 
bilities of  further  development  and  discovery,  aroused  a  sudden 
outburst  of  maritime  activity,  unparalleled  at  any  former 
stage  of  commercial  development. 

Unfortunately  for  the  Mediterranean  states,  already  suffer- 
ing the  limitations  imposed  by  the  Ottoman  Turks  on  the 
Oriental  traffic,  the  opportunity  for  vast  commercial  develop- 
ment and  expansion  over-seas  was  confined,  almost  exclusively, 
to  those  nations  advantageously  situated  on  the  Atlantic  sea- 
board. Due  to  this  mighty  display  of  maritime  activity,  enter- 
prise, following  immediately  in  the  wake  of  each  successive 
discovery,  penetrated  every  quarter  of  the  globe.  Within  a 
single  century,  expeditions  throughout  the  Americas  and  virtu- 
ally throughout  every  region  of  the  globe  brought  to  Europe 
an  augmented  interest  in  ventures  beyond  the  seas.^ 

1  Illustrating  the  profound  effect,  which  the  discoveries  of  Columbus, 
Cabot,  Vasco  da  Gama,  and  the  other  mariners  of  the  late  fifteenth  and 


48  INTERT^ATIOlSrAL    WATEEWAYS 

The  expedition  of  Vasco  da  Gama,  seeking  the  all-sea  route 
to  India,  exerted  a  stimulative  influence  upon  the  development 
of  maritime  enterprise,  scarcely  surpassed  by  the  glorious 
achievement  of  Columbus.  Setting  sail  from  Portugal,  July 
9,  1497,  at  the  command  of  the  king,  da  Gama  traversed  the 
route  first  conceived  by  Prince  Henry  the  l^avigator,  and  ex- 
plored, in  part,  by  the  earlier  voyage  of  Bartholomew  Diaz. 
Rounding  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  Vasco  da  Gama  skirted 
the  eastern  coasts  of  Africa,  crossed  the  Indian  Ocean,  and 
triumphantly  entered  the  port  of  Calicut,  on  the  western 
coast  of  Hindustan,  early  the  following  summer.  Although 
Vasco  da  Gama  had  demonstrated  the  feasibility  of  an  all-sea 
route  to  India;  returning  to  Portugal  laden  with  the  rich 
products  of  the  East  which  repaid  the  venture  sixty-fold;  yet 
the  excessive  length  of  this  route  appeared  a  serious  objection 
to  its  general  adoption,  particularly  as  the  idea  persisted  that 
a  more  expeditious  course  lay  directly  westward. 

The  conviction  that  the  western  course  to  the  Indies  was 
clearly  feasible,  led  John  Cabot  to  undertake  the  notable  voyage, 
resulting  in  the  discovery  of  northeastern  America.  In  com- 
mand of  the  ship  Matlieiv  and  with  a  crew  of  eighteen  men, 
Cabot  gained  the  coast  of  Labrador,  which  he  believed  was 
actually  the  northeastern  shores  of  Asia. 

On  a  similar  quest,  Vasco  ISTunez  de  Balboa  first  saw  the 
waters  of  the  Pacific  from  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  (1513). 
Six  years  later,  Magellan  set  sail  upon  what  was  destined 
to  be  the  first  circumnavigation  of  the  globe.  Sharing  the 
general  objection  to  the  African  route  because   of  excessive 

early    sixteenth    centuries,    exerted    on    exploration,    the   following    figures 

are  significant: 

In  1400  only  50  million  square  kilometres  of  the  earth's  surface  were  known. 

By  1500,  110  million  square  kilometres  were  known. 

By  1600,  316  million  square  kilometres  were  known. 

By  1700,  377  million  square  kilometres  were  known. 

By  1800,  450  million  square  kilometres  were  known. 

By  1890,  483  million  square  kilometres  were  known. 

Since  it  is  estimated  that  the  earth's  surface  comprises  510,000,000 
square  kilometres,  there  remains  but  27,000,000  square  kilometres  yet  to 
be  discovered.     Oppel,  "Terra  Incognita"   (publ.  1891). 


DISCOVERY    EXTENDS    MARITIME    ENTERPRISE  49 

length,  Magellan  was  convinced  that  the  Indies  might  be  reached 
by  voyaging  to  the  westward.  The  island  of  Cipango,  in  his 
belief,  lay  just  beyond  the  barrier  of  the  'New  World,  which 
might  be  rounded  at  the  southern  extremity. 

Eventually,  Magellan  succeeded  in  persuading  the  king  of 
Spain  to  send  him  upon  an  expedition  in  quest  of  the  distant 
Indies.  Coasting  along  the  bleak  shores  of  South  America, 
and  traversing  the  tortuous  and  treacherous  straits  which  now 
commemorate  his  steadfast  purpose,  Magellan  sailed  out  upon 
the  waters  of  the  Pacific.  Columbus  had  fearlessly  shown  the 
way  across  the  Sea  of  Darkness;  Magellan  had  passed  beyond 
that  sea,  and  sailed  for  the  first  time  across  the  waters  of  the 
New  Sea,  the  Pacific,  which  none  had  conceived  to  exist  a 
decade  earlier. 

By  the  peaceful  conquests  of  these  fearless  navigators 
throughout  the  Seven  Seas,  innumerable  trade  routes  were  es- 
tablished; some  with  the  purpose  of  affording  more  commo- 
dious transport  between  the  regions  already  known;  others  for 
the  development  of  newly  discovered  regions,  and  for  the  in- 
terchange of  products  between  these  undeveloped  countries  and 
civilized  Europe.  In  the  profound  changes  which  were  rapidly 
consummated,  all  former  interests  were  affected,  many  of  them 
adversely;  but  the  newly  created  conditions  afforded  ample 
compensation  for  whatever  losses  were  incurred.  The  entire 
aspect  of  maritime  affairs  throughout  the  world  underwent 
change  with  the  realization  and  appreciation  of  the  rewards 
connected  with  more  ambitious  and  comprehensive  undertak- 
ings. The  seas  were  recognized  as  a  source  of  wealth,  not 
solely  because  of  the  rich,  yearly  harvest  of  fish  and  fur,  but 
chiefly  because  the  seas  constituted  the  great  highways  of  com- 
merce. 

Until  the  close  of  the  fifteenth  century,  when  voyages  of 
discovery  had  disclosed  to  wondering  humanity  the  vast 
stretches  of  ocean  and  the  riches  of  distant  lands,  hitherto 
unknown,  the  Mediterranean  and  its  shores  had  constituted 
the  civilized  world,  and  had  comprised  the  area  wherein  com- 


50  INTERNATIONAL    WATERWAYS 

merce  and  sea-trade  had  achieved  maximum  development.  But 
the  discoveries  of  Columbus  and  throughout  the  century  fol- 
lowing his  achievement  wrough  revolution  in  maritime  en- 
terprise and  caused  the  relentless  decay  of  Mediterranean 
supremacy.  European  commerce  became  restive  within  the 
narrow  confines  of  the  Mediterranean.  It  broke  through  the 
customary  bounds  and  spread  throughout  the  world.  But, 
while  Venice  and  the  other  maritime  cities  of  Italy,  as  well 
as  the  cities  forming  the  Hanseatic  League  in  the  north,  were 
despoiled  of  their  lucrative  sea-trade,  enterprise  elswhere 
throughout  Europe  flourished.  England  and  Holland  acquired 
the  trade  formerly  enjoyed  by  the  Hanseatic  League,  while 
Portugal  and  Spain  fell  heir  to  that  of  the  Italian  cities. 

English  enterprise  was  not  confined  to  local  trade,  but  ex- 
tended into  the  most  remote  regions.  Trade  with  Russia  was 
developed  by  virtue  of  a  treaty  negotiated  by  Chancellor  at 
Moscow  (1553)  ;  rich  argosies  brought  the  products  of  Asia, 
Africa,  and  the  Americas  into  the  ports  of  Europe;  while  the 
policy  of  colonization  was  instituted  to  place  this  exploitation 
and  development  on  a  more  secure  and  permanent  basis. -^ 

The  former  power  of  the  Hanseatic  League  proved  inadequate 
to  cope  with  the  expanding  sea-power  of  England,  developing 
under  the  favorable  conditions  obtaining  with  the  beginning  of 
the  sixteenth  century. 

The  Hanseatic  League  was  not  a  state,  but,  as  its  name  im- 
plies, simply  a  league  of  cities,  organized  to  carry  on  trade  for 
mutual  advantage.  Though  lacking  a  requisite  structure  to  ac- 
cord it  recognition  as  an  independent  community,  yet,  being 

1  "  And  now  the  English  began  more  confidently  to  survey  those  coun- 
tries, carrying  their  merchandise  up  the  River  Dwina  in  boates  made  of 
one  whole  piece  of  tree,  which  they  rowed  and  towed  up  the  streame  with 
halsers  as  farre  as  Wologda,  and  from  thence  by  land  7  days  journey  to 
Yeraslaw,  and  then  by  the  Wolga.  ...  30  days,  and  as  many  nights, 
journey  downe  the  River  to  Astracana.  .  .  .  And  from  Astracana,  where 
they  built  ships,  they  did  by  a  very  great  and  memorable  adventure, 
many  times  crosse  the  Caspian  Sea,  which  is  very  full  of  flats  and  shelves, 
and  pierce  through  the  vast  desarts  of  Hircania,  and  Bactriana,  to 
Teverin,  and  Casbin,  cities  of  Persia,  in  hope  at  length  to  discover 
Cathay."     Camden,  "History,"    (1569,  a.  D.),  pg.   105. 


DISCOVEEY    EXTENDS    MARITIME    ENTEEPEISL: 


6i 


endowed  with  important  political  privileges,  the  League  suc- 
cessfully endeavored  to  preserve  the  rights  o£  Hanseatic  mer- 
chants domiciled  in  foreign  countries;  to  extend  Hanseatic 
trade ;  and  to  protect  the  commerce  of  the  League.  It  achieved 
the  pinnacle  of  its  importance  in  the  fourteenth  century.  Fol- 
lowing the  discovery  of  America,  its  trade  declined,  until  the 
Thirty  Years'  War  and  the  Treaty  of  Westphalia  completed  its 
downfall. 

The  expansion  of  English  commercial  prestige  throughout 
JSTorthern  Europe  encountered  only  the  rivalry  of  the  IS^ether- 
lands,  which  continued  a  serious  handicap  until  the  termina- 
tion of  the  English-Dutch  Wars. 

To  the  extent  that  this  unparalleled  development  in  the  ex- 
pansion of  sea-trade  caused  the  spread  of  civilization  through- 
out the  world,  as  the  invariable  accompaniment  of  all  inter- 
communication between  races,  the  influence  was  beneficial. 
The  discoveries,  carried  on  so  successfully  during  the  sixteenth 
century,  broadened  the  field  of  maritime  endeavor  manifold, 
and,  in  consequence,  afforded  opportunity  for  the  beneficent 
extension  and  administration  of  maritime  law,  wherever  com- 
merce called  the  vessels  of  European  nations. 

At  the  outset,  the  intense  rivalry  among  the  nations  of 
Europe  operated  as  an  incentive  to  more  brilliant  achievement, 
but  this  phase  of  international  competition  was  of  short  dura- 
tion. The  conflicting  interests,  aroused  by  the  national  ambi- 
tions of  the  principal  maritime  states,  developed  a  disregard 
for  the  freedom  of  the  seas;  a  principle  which  had  been  ob- 
served, nominally  at  least,  for  centuries. 

In  the  period  following  close  upon  the  epoch-making  dis- 
coveries, the  idea  of  sea-power  developed,  including  the  idea 
that  maritime  pursuits  afforded  an  admirable  training  for  the 
recruitment  of  the  navy;  and,  further,  that  naval  power  was 
essential  for  the  extension  and  protection  of  the  national,  com- 
mercial interests.  When  this  policy  was  extended  to  embrace 
the  exercise  of  sea-power  for  the  maintenance  of  exclusive 
rights  on  the  high  seas,  the  principle  of  the  unrestricted  use  of 
the  seas  was  demolished. 


52  INTERNATIONAL    WATERWAYS 

The  pronouncement  of  the  eminent  scholar  and  scientist, 
Lord  Francis  Bacon,  demonstrates  the  prevailing  conviction  of 
this  epoch: 

"  To  be  Master  of  the  Sea,  is  an  Abridgement  (epitome)  of 
a  Monarchy.  Cicero  writing  to  Atticus,  of  Pompey  his  Prepa- 
ration against  Caesar,  saith :  '  Consilium  Pompeii  plane  The- 
mistocleum  est;  Putat  enim,  qui  Mari  potitur,  eum  Kerum 
potiri.'  (Pompey  follows  the  right  Themistoclean  policy;  he 
considers  that  he  who  commands  the  sea,  commands  all.)  And, 
without  doubt,  Pompey  had  tired  out  Caesar,  if  upon  vaine 
Confidence,  he  had  not  left  that  Way.  The  Battaile  of  Actium 
decided  the  Empire  of  the  World.  The  Battaile  of  Lepanto 
arrested  the  Greatnesse  of  the  Turke.  There  be  many  Ex- 
amples, where  Sea  Fights  have  beene  Finall  to  the  warre ;  But 
this  is,  when  Princes  or  States,  have  set  up  their  Kest,  upon  the 
Battailes.  But  thus  much  is  certaine;  That  hee  that  Com- 
mands the  Sea,  is  at  great  liberty,  and  may  take  as  much,  and 
as  little  of  the  Warre,  as  he  will.  Whereas  those,  that  be 
strongest  by  land,  are  many  times  nevertheless  on  great 
Straights.  Surely,  at  this  Day,  with  us  of  Europe,  the  Van- 
tage of  Strength  at  Sea  (which  is  one  of  the  Principall  Dowries 
of  this  Kingdome  of  Great  Brittaine)  is  Great :  Both  because. 
Most  of  the  Kingdomes  of  Europe,  are  not  meerely  Inland,  but 
girt  with  the  Sea,  most  part  of  their  Compasse ;  And  because, 
the  Wealth  of  both  Indies,  seemes  in  great  Part,  but  an  Acces- 
sary, to  the  Command  of  the  Seas."  (Francis  Bacon,  "  Of  the 
true  Greatnesse  of  Kingdomes  and  Estates.") 

Sir  Walter  Kaleigh  considered  the  command  of  the  sea  indis- 
pensable for  the  adequate  expansion  of  the  nation,  expressing 
the  dominant  idea  of  the  new  policy;  the  sovereignty  of  the 
seas;  succintly: 

"  Whosoever  commands  the  sea,  commands  the  trade  of  the 
world;  whosoever  commands  the  trade  commands  the  riches  of 
the  world,  and  consequently,  the  world  itself."  (Kaleigh, 
Works,  Vol  VIII,  325.) 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  SOVEREIGNTY  OF  THE  SEAS 

Prior  to  the  sixteentli  century,  despite  certain  transitory  at- 
tempts at  restriction,  tlie  navigation  and  enjoyment  of  the  sea 
remained  common  to  all  nations,  this  immemorial  right  being 
protected  and  fostered  by  the  various  bodies  of  maritime  law 
which  had  been  accorded  acceptance  by  European  states  and 
which  afforded  security  to  those  who  ventured  on  the  seas. 

With  the  dazzling  possibilities  disclosed  in  the  discovery  of 
the  all-sea  route  to  India  and  of  the  vast  New  World,  lying  be- 
yond the  Atlantic,  the  conflicting  interests  of  ambitious  sover- 
eigns exhibited  an  increasing  tendency  to  disregard  rights 
which,  with  occasional  exceptions,  had  been  enjoyed  by  all 
nations  since  time  immemorial.  Powerful  maritime  states, 
seeking  to  safeguard  enterprises  abroad,  sought  dominion  on 
the  seas,  and,  upon  consummation  of  the  endeavor,  levied  on- 
erous restrictions,  through  the  payment  of  tribute  or  otherwise, 
upon  foreign  vessels  navigating  those  seas  where  sovereignty 
had  thus  become  established.  This  profound  change  in  the 
policies  of  the  principal  maritime  states  of  Europe  was  des- 
tined to  diminish  the  beneficial  operation  of  the  mediaeval 
maritime  laws,  which  necessarily  were  deprived  of  their  fullest 
force  and  vigor  until  the  ultimate  abandonment  of  these  pre- 
tentions to  sovereignty  on  the  open  ocean  re-established  the 
principle  of  the  freedom  of  the  seas. 

Unquestionably,  such  restrictions  could  claim  the  weighty 
sanction  of  early,  though  occasional,  precedent,  for  the  endeavor 
to  gain  control  of  navigable  waters  has  endured,  with  varying 
intensity,  through  the  ages.  Before  man  had  carried  this  strug- 
gle onto  the  sea,  the  contest  had  begun  along  the  courses  of 
important  inland  waterways,  particularly  in  the  valleys  of  the 
Tigris  an^  the  Euphrates;  on  the  Nile;  and  throughout  the 

&3 


54  INTERNATION-AL    WATERWAYS 

course  of  the  Danube  from  the  Alps  to  the  Euxine.  ^NTomi- 
nally,  the  high  seas  have  ever  been  free  to  the  use  of  ships  of 
all  nations,  on  tenns  of  complete  equality,  but  in  the  long 
history  of  the  sea  there  have  occurred  certain  grave  derogations 
from  this  beneficent  principle;  these  restrictions,  prior  to  the 
sixteenth  century,  arousing  the  immediate  and  successful  op- 
position of  all  maritime  states. 

In  antiquity,  whenever  one  nation  enjoyed  the  resources  of 
the  sea  to  the  virtual  exclusion  of  all  other  maritime  states, 
as  in  the  notable  instance  of  Carthage,  the  constant  employ- 
ment of  force  was  essential,  and  when  force  proved  inadequate 
to  maintain  the  restriction  further,  the  pretension  was  aban- 
doned. Though  this  form  of  exclusive  use  had  its  counter- 
part during  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries  among  the 
nations  of  northern  and  western  Europe,  another  situation 
arose  within  the  confined  waters  of  the  Mediterranean  which 
was  incapable  of  duplication  in  the  later  development  of  mari- 
time enterprise.  This  unique  condition  resulted  through  no 
denial  of  the  use  of  the  seas  to  other  nations ;  through  no  at- 
tempt to  exercise  naval  power  to  enforce  pretensions  of  exclu- 
sive enjoyment;  but  transpired  because  the  dominant  nation 
had  no  important  competitors  in  maritime  enterprise;  either 
because  national  resources  ensured  supremacy  in  maritime  pur- 
suits, as  in  the  instance  of  Phoenicia;  or  because  the  national 
domain  had  received  such  extension  as  to  embrace  all  important 
maritime  states,  as  well  as  the  principal  navigable  waters.  The 
Roman  Empire,  by  securing  sovereignty  over  the  lands  sur- 
rounding the  Mediterranean,  acquired  an  exclusive  enjoyment 
without  the  corresponding  necessity  of  its  maintenance  through 
the  unremitting  emploj^inent  of  sea-power.^ 

The  long-established  hegemony  of  the  Phoenician  cities  in  the 
maritime  affairs  of  the  Mediterranean,  founded  upon  the  first 

1  Consideration  of  the  restrictions  upon  navigation,  resulting  from  the 
activities  of  pirates  or  of  other  irregular  and  illegitimate  forces,  may  be 
dismissed,  since  sig-nificance  attaches  only  to  the  endeavors  of  various  na- 
tions in  the  fulfillment  of  national  aspirations  and  ambitions  by  seeking 
prestige  and  security  through  the  exercise  of  (iPWiftion  on  the  seas. 


THE    SOVEREIGNTY    OF    THE    SEAS  55 

ventures  over  seas  undertaken  in  these  waters,  and  later  ex- 
panding under  the  greater  opportunities  afforded,  successively, 
by  the  protection  of  the  empires  of  Egypt,  Babylonia,  and  Per- 
sia, ended  disastrously  in  the  expedition  undertaken  by  Xerxes 
to  crush  the  growing  sea-power  of  Greece.  The  sea-fight  at 
Salamis  (480  b.  c.)  broke  the  power  of  the  Persians  and  the 
subsequent  victory  at  Hydrum  (449  b.  c.)  under  the  leadership 
of  Cimon  compelled  the  Persians  to  sign  the  treaty  which 
marked  tlie  termination  of  Phoenician  enterprise,  as  an  integral 
part  of  the  Persian  Empire,  in  Mediterranean  waters. 

Plutarch  relates  that  upon  the  defeat  of  the  Phoenicians  at 
Hydrum  by  the  Athenians,  the  King  of  Persia  signed  a  treaty 
by  which  he  engaged  not  to  approach  nearer  to  the  Greek  seas 
than  a  horseman  could  ride  in  one  day,  and  not  to  allow  a 
single  one  of  his  ships  of  war  to  appear  between  the  Cyanean 
and  Chelidonian  islands.  (Plutarch,  "  Life  of  Cimon,"  Chap, 
xiii.)^ 

Thus,  the  maritime  prestige  of  the  most  remarkable  sea- 
faring race  of  antiquity,  a  race  credited  by  Herodotus  with 
having  completed  the  first  circumnavigation  of  Africa,  at  the  in- 
stance of  King  JSTecho  of  Egypt,  six  hundred  years  before  the 
Christian  Era,  became  but  a  memory  in  the  eastern  Mediter- 
ranean; but  in  the  west,  Carthage,  established  originally  as  a 
trading-post  by  these  enterprising  navigators,  carried  forward 
the  Phoenician  traditions. 

The  lucrative  trade  enjoyed  in  the  western  Mediterranean 
afforded  Carthage  opportunity  for  more  ambitious  maritime 
enterprises,  and  the  consequent  extension  of  Carthaginian 
power  and  influence  caused  apprehension  in  Greece,  Marseilles, 
and  at  Rome,  where  the  practical  sovereignty  of  the  western 
Mediterranean,  west  of  Sardinia  and  Sicily  enjoyed  by  Car- 
thage, was  viewed  as  a  serious  menace  to  the  continued  national 
development  of  these  states.     The  arrogant  claim  then  put  forth 

1  The  Cyrean  or  Black  Islands  were  at  the  junction  of  the  Bosphorus 
with  the  Euxine  (Black)  Sea.  The  Chelidonian  or  Swallow  Islands  lie 
off  the  southern  coast  of  Lycia. 


56  INTERNATIOlSrAL    WATEKWAYS 

by  Carthage  to  the  exclusive  dominion  over  all  the  waters  of 
the  western  Mediterranean,  with  the  stipulation  that  all 
strangers  who  were  discovered  trading  with  Sardinia  or  toward 
the  Pillars  of  Hercules  should  be  punished  by  drowning,  led 
to  an  immediate  and  energetic  denial  of  these  pretensions. 
(E.  C.  F.  Babelon  in  the  "  Encyclopedia  Britannica,"  Vol.  V, 
428.) 

War  was  declared  by  Marseilles  against  Carthage,  nominally 
for  the  recognition  of  certain  fishing  rights  which  had  been 
hitherto  enjoyed  by  Marseilles  within  the  Mediterranean,  but 
virtually  for  the  vindication  of  the  principle  of  the  unrestricted 
use  of  the  seas.  Though  Marseilles  failed  to  establish  this 
righteous  claim,  the  inequality  of  the  terms  of  the  treaty  of 
peace  caused  such  discontent  that  Marseilles  willingly  placed 
the  state's  resources  at  the  command  of  Eome  in  the  subsequent 
wars  waged  against  Carthage. 

Elsewhere  in  the  Mediterranean,  restrictions  upon  the  free- 
dom of  navigation  met  a  vigorous  repulse.  When  the  Byzan- 
tines, under  pressure  of  necessity,  attempted  to  levy  tolls  on 
Greek  vessels,  sailing  in  the  Pontus,  it  was  regarded  as  illegit- 
imate conduct,  and  an  appeal  was  made  to  the  Khodians,  who 
were  then  the  acknowledged  masters  of  the  sea.  In  the  war 
which  followed,  Rhodes  compelled  the  Byzantines  to  abandon 
all  pretensions  to  the  exaction  of  maritime  dues.  (Phillipson, 
"  International  Law  and  Custom  of  Ancient  Greece  and  Rome," 
Vol.  II,  380.) 

Similarly,  the  restrictions  imposed  by  Carthage  on  the 
weaker  maritime  powers  became  particularly  onerous  to  Rome, 
due  to  the  rapid  development  of  resources  and  industries,  and 
the  acquisition  of  outlying  provinces.  The  provisions  of  the 
treaties  with  Carthage,  forbidding  trade  with  the  Carthaginian 
territories  in  Hispania,  Africa,  and  Sardinia ;  prohibitions  sim- 
ilar to  those  enforced  by  Portugal  in  India  at  a  later  time; 
caused  gathering  discontent,  but  the  claim  to  sovereigiity  on 
the  seas,  advanced  by  Carthage,  became  an  immediate  menace  to 
the  further  expansion  of  Rome. 


THE    SOVEE,EIGNTY    OF    THE    SEAS  57 

The  First  Punic  War,  lasting  twenty-seven  years  (268-241 
B.  c),  was  waged  by  Carthage  in  defence  of  the  Sicilian  terri- 
tories  and   for   supremacy   in   the    Tyrrhenian    Sea.     Though 
Kome  acquired  Sardinia,  Corsica,  and  Sicily;  conquered  from 
Carthage;  nothing  was  accomplished  toward  establishing  the 
unrestricted  use  of  the  sea.     The  restrictions,  however,  were 
destined  to  be  of  relatively  short  duration,  for  in  the  two  suc- 
ceeding wars,  Roman  sea-power  was  victorious.     With  the  an- 
nihilation of  the  Carthaginian  fleet,  followed  by  the  destruction 
of  Carthage  (146  b.  c),  and  because  of  the  rapid  expansion  of 
the  Roman  Empire,  ultimately  encircling  the  entire  Mediter- 
ranean, Rome  achieved  the  unique  position  of  the  universal 
dominion  of  the  sea. 

Even  in  this  early  period  of  maritime  activity,  property  in 
the  sea  was  considered  legitimate ;  according  to  the  views  of 
certain  jurists;  not  merely  in  territorial  waters,  but  in  ex- 
tensive regions  throughout  the  open  sea.  (Phillipson,  "  Inter- 
national Law  and  Custom  of  Ancient  Greece  and  Rome,"  II, 
376.) 

This  principle,  revived  by  Venice  during  the  later  Middle 
Ages,  was  destined  to  gain  such  acceptance  that  many  nations 
were  willingly  to  recognize,  tacitly  or  by  treaty,  that  certain 
vast  areas  of  the  ocean  rested  under  the  exclusive  sovereignty 
of  a  single  nation.     The  significance  of  this  re-assertion,  during 
the  period  of  intense  commercial  and  maritime  rivalry  which 
followed  the  discoveries  of  the  fifteenth  century,  arises  not  alone 
from  the  fact  that  these  restrictions,  laid  upon  the  free  naviga- 
tion of  the  open  sea,  affected  all  the  waters  of  the  world,  while 
the  earlier  pretensions  had  concerned  only  the  waters  of  the 
Mediterranean;  nor  because  these  limitations  endured  for  cen- 
turies, whereas  in  the  Mediterranean  such  attempts  had  met 
immediate  and  successful  resistance  whenever  the  maritime  in- 
terests of  other  states  were  adversely  affected;  for  these  are 
differences  in  degree,  not  in  principle ;  nor  should  especial  sig- 
nificance attach  to  the  fact  that  this  re-assertion  followed  a 
period  of  nearly  one  thousand  years  during  which  the  freedom 


58  INTERNATIONAL    WATERWAYS 

of  navigation  had  continued  virtually  unmolested.  Great  sig- 
nificance arises,  however,  from  the  fact  that  this  endeavor  to 
limit  the  freedom  of  the  seas  gained  the  mutual  acquiescence. 
and  even  the  support,  of  certain  powerful  maritime  nations, 
which  sought  to  establish  their  pretensions  through  the  employ- 
ment of  force,  and  the  exercise  of  formal  argument,  enlisting 
the  services  of  eminent  jurists,  in  the  vain  quest  of  vindication. 

With  the  enormous  increase  of  maritime  industry,  beginning 
with  the  sixteenth  century,  various  claims  to  dominion  over  the 
seas  appeared,  assuming  diverse  forms.  Monopoly  of  certain 
fisheries  was  demanded ;  salutes  or  other  maritime  honors  were 
exacted ;  the  right  to  exclude  the  belligerent  operations  of  other 
powers  from  extensive  areas  of  the  sea  was  asserted;  leading 
finally  to  the  claim  of  absolute  sovereignty  over  certain  portions 
of  the  high  seas,  with  the  corresponding  negation  of  liberty 
to  traverse  these  waters,  unless  permission  should  be  accorded 
by  the  preliminary  payment  of  tribute.  Responsibility  for 
such  derogations  cannot  attach  to  one  nation,  exclusively. 

While  the  Republic  of  Venice  claimed  sovereignty  over  the 
Adriatic,  Genoa  became  dominant  in  the  Ligurian  Sea ;  Portu- 
gal exerted  exclusive  sovereignty  throughout  the  Indian  Ocean, 
and  the  Atlantic,  south  of  Morocco,  prohibiting  all  foreigners 
from  navigating  or  even  entering  these  waters ;  and  Spain  ap- 
propriated the  whole  of  the  Pacific  Ocean  and  the  Gulf  of 
Mexico.  In  the  I^orth  Atlantic,  England  exerted  sole  juris- 
diction over  the  N^arrow  Seas  and  upon  the  Atlantic  between 
North  Cape  and  Cape  Pinisterre,  while  Denmark  and  Sweden 
enjoyed  dominion  upon  the  Arctic  and  Baltic,  jointly.  By 
the  end  of  the  sixteenth  century,  none  of  the  seas  surrounding 
Europe  remained  free  from  the  claim  of  some  power  to  pro- 
prietary rights,  since  it  had  become  customary  to  consider  the 
sea  as  appropriable.  Under  the  new  order,  those  who  still 
contended  for  the  imrestricted  use  of  the  seas  were  ridiculed  by 
the  defenders  of  Mare  Clausum. 

Sir  John  Selden,  in  his  "  Epistle  Dedicatory  "  to  Charles  I, 
King  of  Great  Britain,  declared  that  there  were  a  few  who, 


THE    SOVEREIGNTY    OF    THE    SEAS  59 

following  chiefly  some  of  the  ancient  Caesarian  lawyers,  en- 
deavored to  affirm,  or  beyond  reason  too  easily  to  admit  that 
"  all  Seas  are  common  to  the  Universality  of  Mankind." 

Welwood  contended  ("  Abridgement  of  All  Sea-Laws  ")  that 
no  universal  liberty  existed,  accorded  as  an  undisputed  right  to 
fish  in  any  sea;  taking  particular  exception  to  the  contention 
of  Grotius  who  had  supported  this  liberty;  and  declared  that 
the  freedom  of  navigation  should  not  be  confused  with  the 
liberty  of  the  fisheries.  The  English  practice  under  the  Com- 
monwealth and  Charles  II  was  in  accordance  with  this  view, 
foreigners  who  intended  to  fish  in  the  ISTorth  Sea  being  required 
to  take  out  English  licenses  for  the  purpose.  Denmark 
adopted  a  similar  policy  and  required  licenses  of  all  fishermen 
who  entered  the  sea  between  ISTorway  and  Iceland,  abandoning 
this  claim  because  of  the  insistent  opposition  of  England  and 
the  ^Netherlands  during  the  eighteenth  century. 

In  the  restricted  use  of  such  appropriated  waters,  foreigners 
enjoyed  some  compensation  for  the  tribute  exacted,  whether 
honorary  or  in  specie,  because  of  the  reciprocal  obligation,  gen- 
erally fulfilled,  resting  upon  the  sovereign  power  to  accord 
full  protection  against  piracy  throughout  these  waters.  At  this 
time,  when  vessels  laden  with  rich  cargoes  sailed  across  the  un- 
known ocean  and  skirted  unexplored  coasts,  the  protection  thus 
accorded  the  shipping  of  nationals  and  foreigners,  alike,  was 
indispensable,  for  piracy  flourished,  the  reward  being  so  great, 
and  the  likelihood  of  apprehension,  negligible.  In  fulfilling 
this  obligation  of  protection  to  commerce,  the  antagonism  to  the 
exclusive  jurisdiction  asserted  by  the  particular  state  became 
less  pronounced,  until  the  right  of  control  over  the  appropriated 
waters  became  recognized  and  permanently  established.  This 
recognition  of  the  established  control  led  inevitably  and  almost 
immediately  to  the  claim  of  absolute  property  in  the  open  sea, 
and  such  claims  secured  acceptance  readily,  since  at  this  period 
control  and  property  were  ideas  scarcely  disassociated;  the  es- 
tablishment of  pne  condition  induced  the  recognition  of  the 
other. 


60  INTERT^fATIONAL,    WATERWAYS 

In  the  development  from  comparative  freedom  to  inflexible 
restriction,  a  similar  evolution  is  apparent  in  tlie  character  of 
waters  susceptible  of  exclusive  control.  Sovereignty  attached 
originally  to  the  narrow  seas,  but  with  the  continued  develop- 
ment of  maritime  enterprise  the  advantages  thus  accorded 
proved  inadequate  to  fulfill  national  ambition.  Accordingly, 
the  claims  to  sovereignty  became  more  comprehensive,  embrac- 
ing vast  areas  of  the  open  ocean. 

The  thirteenth  century  claim  of  Venice,  successfully  main- 
tained for  several  decades,  sought  exclusive  jurisdiction  within 
the  Adriatic,  a  narrow  sea.  Venice  enforced  the  claim  inflex- 
ibly, levying  heavy  imposts  upon  all  ships  and  all  merchandise 
which  traversed  the  northern  Adriatic.  Later,  with  the  furtlier 
expansion  of  Venetian  power,  no  ship  could  enter  any  waters 
of  the  Adriatic,  except  upon  sufferance  and  the  payment  of 
tribute.  (Daru,  "  Histoire  de  la  Republique  de  Venise,"  Liv. 
V.) 

Westlake  suggests  ("  International  Law,"  I,  165)  that  the 
exclusive  jurisdiction  over  the  Adriatic,  asserted  by  Venice, 
may  be  considered  as  an  enlarged  application  of  the  principle 
of  gulfs,  "  notwithstanding  the  width  of  the  gulf  in  question 
and  its  not  being  wholly  bordered  by  Venetian  lands." 

It  would  appear,  rather,  that  the  assertion  and  maintenance 
of  sovereignty  over  the  Adriatic  arose  through  the  paramount 
necessity  of  advancing  the  interests  of  the  state.  Venice,  be- 
cause of  an  extensive  and  rapidly  developing  merchant  marine, 
supported  by  an  adequate  navy,  was  enabled  to  maintain  do- 
minion upon  the  sea.  Indeed,  as  early  as  the  eighth  century, 
Venice  had  achieved  renown  because  of  the  powerful  fleet  which 
protected  over-seas  enterprise.  The  naval  power  of  Venice  was 
well-recognized  by  the  Italian  states  at  this  early  time,  particu- 
larly following  the  defeat  of  the  Lombards  in  the  sea-fight 
waged  by  Venice  in  behalf  of  the  Exarchate  of  Ravenna. 
Charlemagne,  jealous  of  the  preference  accorded  by  Venice  to 
the  Greek  emperors,  despatched  a  fleet  to  the  Adriatic,  an^ 


THE    SOVEREIGNTY    OF    THE    SEAS  61 

again  Venetian  sea-power  triumphed.      (Schomberg,  "  Laws  of 
Rhodes,"  50.) 

In  1289,  when  Venice  began  levying  heavy  tolls  on  all  ves- 
sels navigating  the  northern  Adriatic,  Bologna  and  Ancona, 
relying  upon  the  principle,  long-established  and  generally  ob- 
served, that  the  sea  was  incapable  of  sovereignty,  sought  to 
resist  the  Venetian  pretensions.  Unfortunately,  the  attempted 
vindication  of  this  international  right  failed,  because  of  the 
superior  maritime  strength  of  Venice.  Bologna  and  Ancona 
were  compelled  to  acknowledge  Venetian  sovereignty  upon  the 
Adriatic,  and,  thereafter,  to  pay  the  tribute  demanded  for  the 
privilege  of  entering  the  appropriated  area. 

The  ambitions  of  Venice  were  menaced  by  the  Genoese  and 
the  contest  for  supremacy  within  the  Mediterranean,  beginning 
with  the  sea-fight  off  Cyprus  (1298),  was  waged  between  these 
two  states  until  the  decisive  engagement  at  Chioggia  crushed 
the  sea-power  of  Genoa.  Venice  now  had  no  important  com- 
petitor in  the  Mediterranean  sea-trade  and  entered  upon  a  period 
of  unparalleled  maritime  enterprise,  which  achieved  the  most 
extended  development  during  the  fifteenth  century.  Each  year, 
in  celebration  of  this  maritime  supremacy,  the  Doge  cast  a  ring 
into  the  Adriatic  to  symbolize  the  traditional  marriage,  the 
immemorial  union,  between  Venice  and  the  sea. 

The  sovereignty  exercised  by  Venice  throughout  the  Adriatic 
became  so  inflexible  that  when  the  sister  of  the  king  of  Spain 
was  voyaging  to  Carniola,  being  espoused  to  the  king  of  Hun- 
gary, Venice  claimed  the  exclusive  right  of  transporting  her 
from  ISTaples  to  Trieste.  The  Spaniards,  resenting  this  restric- 
tion on  the  freedom  of  the  seas,  demurred.  In  answer,  Venice 
threatened  to  attack  any  Spanish  ship  venturing  within  the 
waters  of  the  Adriatic,  as  an  enemy  of  the  Republic,  and  in  con- 
sequence the  Spaniards  acknowledged  the  claim.  (Schomberg, 
"  Laws  of  Rhodes,"  48.)  (Molloy,  "  De  jure  maritime  et 
navali,"  Vol.  I,  123.) ^ 

1  In   1478,  Frederick  III,  Emperor  of  Germany    (1440-1493),  was  com- 


62  INTEIINATIONAL    WATERWAYS 

Genoa,  in  a  similar  manner,  exercised  exclusive  jurisdiction 
upon  the  Ligurian  Sea;  considering  this  portion  of  the  high 
seas  as  an  integi-al  part  of  the  national  domain.  Neighboring 
states  enjoyed  the  use  of  this  sea  only  by  observing  the  harsh 
restrictions  imposed  by  Genoa,  designating  the  length  of  voy- 
ages which  might  be  undertaken  on  the  Ligurian  and  Mediter- 
ranean seas.  (Heyd,  "  Histoire  du  commerce  du  Levant  du 
Moyen  Age,"  I,  20.)  In  a  vain  endeavor  to  vindicate  the  right 
freely  to  navigate  the  seas,  Pisa,  whose  interests  were  most 
seriously  endangered,  attacked  the  Genoese,  but  suffered  de- 
cisive defeat  (1284)  in  the  naval  engagement  off  Meloria. 
This  victory  ruined  the  maritime  power  of  Pisa,  and  enabled 
Genoa  to  exact  an  implicit  observance  of  the  stipulations  and 
regulations  governing  the  use  of  these  waters  by  foreign  ship- 
ping. Strengthened  by  the  additional  resources  derived  from 
dominion  upon  the  Lig-urian  Sea,  Genoa  now  entered  into  active 
competition  with  Venice  throughout  the  Levant,  seeking  the 
control  of  the  Oriental  trade,  and  succeeded  in  establishing  a 
lucrative  trade  route  through  the  Bosphorus  and  the  Euxine. 

The  continued  prosperity  of  these  two  states,  Genoa  and 
Venice;  enjoying,  temporarily,  exceptional  advantages  and  op- 
portunities upon  the  sea  through  the  negation  of  the  maritime 
rights  of  other  Mediterranean  states;  was  destined  to  collapse 
under  the  rigorous,  and  similar,  sovereignty  exercised  by  the 
Ottoman  Turks  over  the  eastern  Mediterranean,  following  the 
capture  of  Constantinople  (1453). 

Though  the  sea-trade  of  the  Genoese  had  been  seriously  crip- 
pled by  the  decisive  victory  gained  by  the  Venetians  at  Chi- 
oggia,  following  the  seven  years  of  continuous  warfare  which 
had  begun  with  the  sea-fight  off  Cyprus  (1298),  it  continued 
moderately  active  because  of  the  valuable  trade  with  the  Euxine 
and  the  distant  regions  beyond  the  Caucasus.     The  irresistible 

pelled  to  recognize  the  sovereignty  of  Venice  throughout  the  Adriatic; 
having  humbly  to  obtain  permission  from  the  Republic,  before  transport- 
ing grain  from  Apulia,  in  southeastern  Italy,  to  the  Germanic  ports  of 
Carniola. 


THE    SOVEEEIGNTT    OF    THE    SEAS 


63 


expansion  of  the  Ottoman  power  in  the  East,  cuhninating  in  the 
fall  of  Constantinople,  while  threatening  destruction  to  the 
maritime  enterprises  of  Venice,  caused  the  immediate  demoral- 
ization and  decay  of  Genoese  sea-trade,  for  passage  through  the 
Bosphorus  was  denied  all  Christian  traders,  and  the  Bosphorus 
was  the  artery  of  Genoese  trade  with  the  Orient. 

Venice  remained  the  only  obstacle  to  the  supremacy  of  the 
Ottoman  Turks  in  the  eastern  Mediterranean,  since  the  power 
of  Genoa,  weakened  by  the  years  of  disastrous  conflict  with  Ven- 
ice, was  inadequate  to  maintain  the  unrestricted  use  of  the 
eastern  seas. 

In  combating  the  very  pretensions  to  sovereignty  on  the  seas, 
earlier  established  and  still  maintained  on  the  Adriatic,  Venice 
waged  unceasing  war  upon  the  Turks  beginning  (1470)  with 
the  decisive  engagement  which  destroyed  Venetian  sea-power 
in  the  Grecian  seas,  and  continuing  until  the  Turks  succeeded 
(1503)  to  the  maritime  supremacy  of  Venice  throughout  the 
Mediterranean,  The  ultimate  destruction  of  Turkish  mari- 
time sovereignty  at  Malta  (1565)  and  Lepanto  (1571),  failed 
to  revive  the  former  enterprise  of  Genoa  and  Venice,  destroyed 
by  the  very  weapon  which  these  states  had  themselves  wielded, 
the  denial  of  the  freedom  of  the  seas,  for  the  discovery  of  the 
all-sea  route  to  India  and  of  the  ISTew  World  beyond  the  Western 
Sea  transferred  the  seat  of  maritime  enterprise  to  the  Atlantic 
seaboard.  States,  situated  on  the  enclosed  waters  of  the  Medi- 
terranean, suffered  the  handicap  of  being  far  removed  from 
ocean  trade  routes,  reached  only  by  the  passage  through  the 
Pillars  of  Hercules,  an  access  controlled  by  the  adjoining  states 
and  susceptible  of  restriction  at  any  time. 

Establishment  of  Exclusive  Sovereignty  Over  the  Great 
Waters. —  Spain  and  Portugal  recognized  the  opportunity  and 
possibilities  of  world-wide  exploration  and  commerce  disclosed 
by  the  marvelous  voyages  of  discovery  achieved  by  their  re- 
spective master  mariners,  Columbus  and  Vasco  da  Gama;  and 
realized,  too,  their  advantageous  position  for  engaging  suc- 
cessfully in  such  enterprise.     ISTot  content  with  the  advantages 


"^  INTER^STATIOiSrAX,    WATEEWAYS 

inherent  in  their  fortunate  situation  upon  the  Atlantic,  Spain 
and  Portugal,  seeking  to  safeguard  their  undertakings  still 
further,  advanced  preposterous  claims  to  vast  areas  of  land  and 
sea,  based  superficially  upon  their  discoveries  over  the  world. 
The  unavailing  protests  of  the  excluded  nations;  the  apparent 
sanction  given  bj  Papal  decree  to  these  pretensions;  the  even- 
tual acquiescence  of  other  nations  prominent  in  maritime  af- 
fairs, which  later  set  up  similar  claims  to  sovereignty  over 
wide  areas  of  the  sea;  combined  to  destroy  the  freedom  of 
navigation,  not  only  on  the  !N"arrow  Seas,  but  even  throughout 
the  vast  expanse  of  ocean. 

The  claims  of  Portugal  and  Spain  were  particularly  out- 
rageous, because  of  their  geographical  extent  and  the  inflexible 
denial  of  innocent  passage  to  the  vessels  of  foreign  nations. 
The  Spanish  and  Portuguese  sovereigns,  in  seeking  to  exclude 
all  foreign  vessels  from  navigating  or  even  entering  the  waters 
thus  arrogated  to  their  exclusive  use,  invariably  referred  for 
sanction  to  the  Bull  of  Alexander  VI,  as  establishing  the  va- 
lidity and  sanctity  of  the  restrictive  regulations. 

At  the  commencement  of  the  great  epoch  of  world-wide 
discovery,  the  Popes  still  claimed  to  be  the  masters  of  the  world 
by  divine  right  and  especially  of  all  islands  of  the  sea,  deriving 
their  jurisdiction  in  virtue  of  the  forged  donation  of  Con- 
stantine.  By  the  Bull  of  1454,  Pope  Nicholas  V  granted  to 
King  Alphonso  V  of  Portugal  the  discoveries  already  made, 
OE  TO  be;  made,  upon  the  west  coast  of  Africa,  in  perpetuity. 
(Westlake,  "International  Law,"  I,  96.)  The  grant  of  title, 
in  perpetuity,  aifecting  discoveries  still  to  be  made,  is  an  in- 
teresting commentary  on  the  prevalent  custom  of  this  period 
of  enthusiastic  exploration.  Eights  of  property  were  thus  as- 
sured, even  before  setting  out,  whatever  might  be  discovered. 
In  the  Bull  of  1493  and  1494,  issued  by  Alexander  VI,  prece- 
dent in  this  regard  is  scrupulously  observed. 

Pope  Alexander  VI,  by  the  Proclamations  of  May  S  and  4, 
1493,  recognized  the  existing  rights  of  Portugal,  while  at  the 
same  time  establishing  those  of  Spain.     The  Bull  of  May  3, 


THE    SOVEHEIGNTT    OF    THE    SEAS 


65 


1493,  "  Eximiae  devotionis,"  which  was  superseded  by  the  Bull 
of  May  4,  1493,  grants  to  Spain  the  same  rights  from  dis- 
covery as  had  formerly  been  conferred  on  Portugal  in  Africa: 
"  But  inasmuch  as  by  this  apostolic  see  have  been  granted  divers 
privileges,  favors,  liberties,  &c,  &c,  .  .  .  to  some  kings  of  Por- 
tugal ...  we  do  by  tenor  of  these  presents,  as  a  gift  of  special 
favor,  empower  you  and  your  aforesaid  heirs  and  successors,  to 
the  end  that  in  the  islands  and  countries  already  discovered 
by  you  or  in  your  name,  and  to  be  discovered  hereafter,  you 
may  .  .  .  use,  employ,  and  enjoy  ...  all  and  singular,  the 
graces,  privileges,  exemptions,  liberties,  facilities,  immunities, 
letters,  and  indults  that  have  been  granted  to  the  kings  of  Por- 
tugal."     (Blair,  "  The  Philippine  Islands,"  Vol.  I,  89.) 

An  additional  Bull,  granted  the  same  day,  "  Inter  Caetera," 
gave  Spain  title  to  all  the  lands  in  the  West,  recently  discovered 
or  yet  to  be  discovered,  which  had  been  unknown,  hitherto,  and 
not  under  the  dominion  of  any  Christian  prince,  this  Bull 
being  superseded  by  the  Proclamation  of  May  4,  1493  : 

"  We  ...  by  the  authority  of  Almighty  God,  conferred 
upon  us  in  blessed  Peter  and  of  the  vicarship  of  Jesus  Christ, 
which  we  hold  on  earth,  do  by  tenor  of  these  presents  give, 
grant,  and  assign,  forever,  to  you  and  your  heirs  and  succes- 
sors, Kings  of  Castile  and  Leon,  all  and  singular,  the  aforesaid 
countries  and  islands  thus  unknown  and  hitherto  discovered  by 
your  envoys,  and  to  be  discovered  hereafter,  providing,  how- 
ever, they  at  no  time  have  been  in  the  actual  temporal  possession 
of  any  Christian  owner."  (Blair,  "  The  Philippine  Islands," 
Vol.  I,  89.) 

In  the  following  year,  an  imaginary  line,  drawn  from  north 
to  south  and  lying  one  hundred  leagues  west  of  the  Azore  and 
Cape  Verde  islands,  apportioned  the  still  unknown  regions  into 
two  spheres  of  influence ;  not  with  the  purpose  of  dividing  and 
dedicating  the  remainder  of  the  world  to  Spain  and  Portugal, 
but  rather  to  designate  those  regions  wherein  the  priority  of 
discovery  would  invariably  and  unquestionably  accord  the  right 
of  property.     In  providing  this  line  there  was  no  intention 


66  INTERNATIONAL    WATEEWATS 

of  dividing  the  New  World,  since  at  this  date  its  existence  was 
unknown.  The  Line  simply  divided  the  islands  which  had  al- 
ready been  discovered,  while  its  subsequent  importance  in  the 
division  of  property  was  dependent  upon  the  discoveries  which 
were  yet  to  be  made. 

The  two  Bulls  which  had  been  issued  May  3,  1493,  had  con- 
tained no  mention  of  a  specific  Line  of  Demarcation,  but  Alex- 
ander VI,  by  the  decree  of  May  4,  1493,  established  the  Line 
in  the  endeavor  to  avoid  needless  disputes  arising  through  un- 
certainty regarding  the  actual  spheres  of  the  respective  sover- 
eignties. East  of  the  Line,  Portugal  was  to  retain  the  rights 
already  acquired,  in  virtue  of  earlier  explorations  and  grants 
of  former  popes,  while  future  explorations  and  discoveries 
which  might  be  undertaken,  were  to  enjoy  the  advantages,  sim- 
ilarly and  equally  enjoyed  by  Spain.  By  the  same  instrument, 
Alexander  VI  assigned  to  Spain  the  same  exclusive  rights  of 
exploration,  trade,  and  colonization  over  all  the  lands  that 
should  be  discovered  south  and  west  of  the  Line,  provided  that 
these  lands  were  not  already  occupied  by  some  Christian  sov- 
ereign.^ 

The  explicit  provisions,  limiting  the  activities  of  Spain  ex- 
clusively to  the  westward  of  the  Line,  were  inserted  at  the  in- 
stance of  Portugal,  admitting  under  no  circumstances  any  in- 
fringement of  the  monopoly  enjoyed  along  the  coasts  of  Africa. 

1  The  Bull  of  May  4,  1493,  "  Inter  caetera,"  superseding  the  Bulls  of 
May  3,  1493,  "  Exiraiae  devotionis  "  and  "Inter  caetera";  established  the 
Demarcation  Line,  and  granted  to  Spain  all  lands  west  and  south  of  this 
line,  if  not  already  in  the  possesion  of  any  Christian  prince. 

"  We  do  give,  grant,  and  assign  to  you  and  your  heirs  and  successors, 
Kings  of  Castile  and  Leon,  ...  all  islands  and  mainlands  found  or  to  be 
found,  discovered  or  to  be  discovered  towards  the  west  and  south,  by 
drawing  and  establishing  a  line  from  the  Arctic  pole,  namely  the  North; 
to  the  Antarctic  pole,  namely  the  South,  no  matter  whether  the  said 
mainlands  and  islands  are  found  or  to  be  foimd  in  the  direction  of  India 
or  towards  any  other  quarter;  the  said  line  to  the  west  and  south  to  be 
distant  one  hundred  leagues  from  any  of  the  islands  commonly  known 
as  the  Azore  and  Cabo  Verde.  .  .  .  With  this  proviso,  however,  that  none 
of  the  islands  or  mainlands  ...  be  in  actual  possession  of  any  Christian 
king  or  prince  up  to  the  birthday  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  just  past  in 
the  present  year,  1493."     Blair,  "  The  Philippine  Islands,"  Vol.  I,  pg.  89. 


THE    SOVEKEIGNTY    OF    THE    SEAS 


eY 


The  Bull  of  May  4,  1493,  however,  did  not  provide  specifi- 
cally with  regard  to  the  East  Indian  trade.  To  appease  the 
Spaniards,  Alexander  VI  granted  new  opportunities  to  Spain  in 
the  Bull  of  September  25,  1493,  which  virtually  annulled  the 
Bull  of  Demarcation,  as  well  as  all  the  former  concessions  which 
had  been  accorded  to  Portugal.  Thenceforth,  the  Spanish  mon- 
archs  enjoyed  full  rights  in  all  lands  discovered  to  the  south 
and  west  "  and  eastern  regions  and  to  India,"  and  might  reach 
the  East  Indies  by  constantly  voyaging  westward  from  the 
Line.  The  Spanish  claim  to  all  lands  arising  from  prior  dis- 
covery would  consequently  be  valid,  by  virtue  of  this  latest 
Bull,  against  the  claims  of  the  Portuguese,  who  had  considered, 
heretofore,  that  India  had  been  dedicated  to  them  as  an  ex- 
clusive region  for  discovery,  exploration,  and  development.-^ 

This  amplification  of  the  Spanish  rights,  resting  upon  a  cor- 
responding limitation  of  the  Portuguese,  led  to  the  immediate 
remonstrance  of  King  John  of  Portugal,  who  appealed  to  the 
provisions  of  the  treaty  of  1479  between  Spain  and  Portugal, 
providing  that  to  Portugal  should  be  accorded  the  field  of 
ocean  discovery,  while  Spain  should  retain  only  the  Canaries. 
King  John  contended,  vehemently,  that  the  Line  of  Demarca- 
tion, lying  but  one  hundred  leagues  westward  from  the  Azore 
Islands,  infringed  the  immemorial  rights  of  his  kingdom,  and 
would  not  afford  his  sailors  adequate  sea-way  to  undertake  ex- 
peditions along  the  African  coast  and  to  India. 

To  compose  the  difficulties  which  had  thus  arisen  between 
the  two  kingdoms,  the  treaty  of  Tordesillas  was  agreed  upon, 
June  7,  1494,  stipulating  that  the  Demarcation  Line  should  be 
moved  two  hundred  and  seventy  leagues  westward  from  the 
point  prescribed  by  the  Papal  Bull  of  May  4,  1493  ;  while  a  sup- 

iThe  Bull  of  September  25,  1493,  practically  annulling  the  Bull  of 
Demarcation,  May  4,  1493,  provided :  "  We  do  extend  and  enlarge  our 
aforesaid  gift,  grant,  assignment,  and  letters,  with  all  and  singular,  the 
clauses  contained  therein,  so  as  to  secure  to  you  all  islands  and  main- 
lands, whatsoever,  that  are  found  and  to  be  found,  discovered  and  to  be 
discovered,  are  or  were  or  seem  to  be  in  the  route  by  sea  or  land  to  the 
west  or  south,  but  are  now  recognized  as  being  in  the  waters  of  the  west 
or  south  and  east  and  India."     Blair,  "  The  Philippine  Islands,"  I,  pg.  90. 


68  INTERNATIONAL    WATERWAYS 

plementary  document  of  April  15,  1495,  provided  for  appro- 
priate arraiigemeuts  for  the  scientific  and  equitable  determina- 
tion of  the  new  line  of  demarcation.  (Blair,  "  The  Philippine 
Islands,"  I,  23.  Martens;  Supplement,  "  Eec.  de  Prin. 
Traites,"  Vol.  I,  pgs.  372,  389.) 

Pope  Julius  II  confirmed  the  treaty  of  Tordesillas  (1506), 
which,  by  shifting  the  Line  to  a  point  three  hundred  and  sev- 
enty leagues  to  the  west  of  the  Cape  Verde  and  Azore  islands, 
was  destined  to  secure  for  Portugal  the  vast  area  of  Brazil ;  and 
the  interests  of  Portugal  were  further  safeguarded  by  the  Bull 
of  Leo  X,  "  Prsecelsse,"  gTanted  to  Portugal  JSTovember  3,  1514, 
which  confirmed  all  previous  papal  gifts  to  Portugal  of  lands 
in  the  East,  granting  to  Portugal  all  past  and  future  discoveries 
and  conquests,  there  and  elsewhere.  (Blair,  "  The  Philippine 
Islands,"  I,  90.) 

In  examining  the  arrangements  established  by  the  Papal 
Bulls  and  the  compensating  treaty  of  Tordesillas,  it  is  note- 
worthy that  no  specific  reference  was  made  to  the  further  ex- 
tension of  the  Demarcation  Line  around  the  world,  and  that  no 
division  of  the  world  was  contemplated;  though  at  a  later  time 
attempts  were  made  to  read  such  extensions  into  these  early 
documents.  These  arrangements  sought  to  avoid  futile  con- 
troversies, and  to  provide  for  an  unrestricted  field  for  the  ex- 
ploration and  conquest  of  the  unkno^vn  regions  of  the  world; 
the  exclusive  sphere  of  interest  for  Portugal  lying  to  the  east 
of  the  Line;  that  of  Spain  lying  to  the  west  and  southward. 

The  first  instance  of  the  contention  that  the  world  had  been 
divided  between  Portugal  and  Spain,  exclusively,  by  Papal  de- 
cree, and  of  the  claim  that  the  Line  had  extended  around  the 
world,  appeared  at  the  time  of  Magellan's  notable  discoveries, 
in  the  endeavor,  on  the  part  of  Spain,  to  claim  all  that  might 
be  within  the  Western  Hemisphere.  (Blair,  "  The  Philippine 
Islands,"  I,  25.) 

This  unwarranted  extension  of  the  Bull  of  1493  founded  the 
subsequent  claim,  advanced  by  Spain  and  Portugal  alike,  that 
the  Pope  had  granted  their  respective  sovereigns  exclusive  do- 


THE    SOVEREIGNTY    OF    THE    SEAS  69 

minion  throughout  the  seas,  comprehended  within  the  limits 
prescribed  by  the  Line  of  Demarcation.  In  contending  for  the 
validity  of  these  exclusive  privileges,  neither  Spain  nor  Por- 
tugal regarded  the  rights  of  other  maritime  states  upon  these 
seas.  Moreover,  any  relaxation  of  this  restrictive  policy,  which 
was  always  a  possibility  while  the  acute  controversies  continued 
between  Spain  and  Portugal,  was  remotely  deferred  by  the  in- 
corporation of  Portugal  (1581)  in  the  kingdom  of  Philip  II. 
This  fusion  of  Spain  and  Portugal  produced  a  united  kingdom 
of  unlimited  maritime  dominion.  The  ^N'ev/  World  belonged 
almost  wholly  to  the  Spanish  sovereigns.^ 

In  the  acquisition  of  these  vast  dominions  beyond  the  seas, 
maritime  enterprise  was  stimulated  through  the  exceptional  op- 
portunities afforded  for  sea-trade ;  protected  and  fostered  by  the 
Spanish  claim  to  the  exclusive  ownership  of  all  waters  within 
the  area  described  in  the  Bulls  of  Alexander  VI ;  and  the  sea- 
power  of  Spain  became  formidable  within  the  Mediterranean 
and  upon  all  the  waterways  of  the  world. 

Portugal,  the  earliest  and  the  pre-eminent  maritime  power 
of  the  New  Age,  the  Mistress  of  the  Seas  by  virtue  of  her  in- 
trepid mariners,  the  first  navigators  of  the  Christian  Era  to 
voyage  beyond  the  Equator,  contributed  her  vast  naval  forces 
to  Spain's  already  notable  sea-power.  Prestige  and  almost  un- 
limited dominion  on  the  sea  resulted  from  this  union,  cul- 
minating in  the  reign  of  Charles  V,  King  of  Spain,  Emperor 
of  Germany,  and  sovereign,  in  claim,  of  the  entire  Western 
Hemisphere.  Charles  V,  in  his  endeavor  still  further  to  exalt 
the  power  of  Spain  upon  the  seas,  conceived  the  project  of  con- 
structing a  canal  across  the  American  isthmus  to  unite  the  At- 

1  Subsequently,  more  than  a  hundred  years  after  the  dissolution  of  the 
union  between  the  two  sovereigns  (December  3,  1640),  Portugal  and 
Spain  resolved  by  the  Treaty  of  Madrid,  January  13,  1750,  to  terminate 
all  past  and  future  disputes  by  declaring  the  Bulls  of  Alexander  VI,  the 
Treaty  of  Tordesillas,  and  other  treaties  based  thereon  null  and  void; 
agreeing  to  desist  from  all  actions  and  rights  which  might  have  existed 
under  previous  conventions. 

(J.  B.  Moore,  "Brazil  and  Peru  Boundary  Question,"  p.  4;  quoting  the 
Yale  Revieio,  Vol.  I,  p.  54.) 


70  ITTTERlSrATIOTTAI.    WATEEWAYS 

lantic  and  Pacific,  and  to  facilitate  trade  between  Spain,  Peru, 
and  the  Philippines,  but  the  lack  of  sufficient  capital,  to  prose- 
cute the  work  successfully,  prohibited  the  undertaking.  Funds 
were  more  urgently  needed  to  maintain  the  supremacy  of  the 
Spanish  fleet,  for  already  the  maritime  states  of  northern  Eu- 
rope, particularly  the  Netherlands  and  England,  were  making 
extensive  preparations  to  resist  the  preposterous  claims  of  Spain 
to  dominion  on  the  seas.  The  claims  of  Portugal  and  Spain, 
based  upon  unwarranted  extensions  of  the  specific  privileges 
accorded  by  the  Papal  Bulls  of  1493,  being  combined  by  the 
Act  of  Union,  afforded  scanty  opportunity  for  over-seas  enter- 
prise among  other  maritime  states.  France,  Holland,  and  Eng- 
land had  already  disregarded  the  erection  of  the  Demarcation 
Line,  and  had  ignored  the  alleged  division  of  dominion,  conse- 
crated by  Papal  decree. 

Henry  VII  of  England,  in  letters  patent  granted  to  John 
Cabot  and  his  sons.  May  5,  1496,  empowered  his  grantees  to 
navigate  the  eastern,  western,  and  northern  seas,  and  "  to  find, 
discover,  and  search  out  all  islands,  countries,  regions,  and  prov- 
inces of  gentiles  or  infidels,  situate  in  any  part  of  the  world, 
which  were  unknown  to  all  Christians  before  these  times." 
(Westlake,  "International  Law,"  I,  97.) 

By  gTanting  this  extensive  license  to  his  navigators,  Henry 
VII  willfully  disregarded  the  claims  of  Spain  and  Portugal, 
based  on  the  Papal  Bulls  which  had  been  issued  three  years 
previously,  though  the  prior  rights,  acquired  by  the  Spaniards 
through  explorations  in  the  southern  seas,  were  respected  in  the 
terms  of  the  regal  grant. 

Under  the  protection  of  these  letters  patent,  John  Cabot 
crossed  the  line  (1497),  discovering  regions  in  ISTorth  America 
which  were  immediately  claimed  by  Henry  VII. 

With  similar  independence,  Francis  I  claimed  an  indefinite 
extent  of  coast  northward  from  Florida,  under  the  title  of  New 
France. 

This  flagrant  disregard  by  Catholic  powers  of  gi-ants  made 
by  the  expressed  authority  of  the  Pope  was  surpassed  by  the 


THE    SOVEBEIGNTY    OF    THE    SEAS  71 

action  of  the  Protestant  states  which  reasoned  that  no  such 
Papal  grant  could  restrict  their  enterprises  beyond  the  seas. 
The  Dutch  drove  the  Portuguese  out  of  the  Indian  Ocean,  and 
proceeded  to  establish  colonies  in  these  regions  as  well  as  in 
America.  Other  nations,  with  like  impunity,  erected  colonies  in 
America  and  elsewhere  throughout  the  Seven  Seas. 

Bernardine  Mendoza,  Spanish  Ambassador  at  the  Court  of 
Queen  Elizabeth,  entered  a  vigorous  protest  because  of  the 
alleged  violation  of  Spanish  rights,  committed  by  Sir  Francis 
Drake  in  entering  the  appropriated  waters  of  the  Pacific 
(1580),  while  on  the  famous  voyage  of  circumnavigation.  In 
reply,  Queen  Elizabeth  contended  that  no  right  of  exclusive 
sovereignty  could  be  recognized  in  those  waters,  inasmuch  as 
the  alleged  disposal  of  Alexander  VI  of  the  vast  regions  of  the 
sea  and  of  the  lands  therein,  both  prior  and  subsequent  to  dis- 
covery, must  be  considered  void  and  would  not  be  tolerated  by 
England  as  a  limitation  of  equal  participation  and  enjoyment 
in  the  benefits  of  navigation  and  exploration  throughout  the 
world.  Continuing  her  reply.  Queen  Elizabeth  denied  that 
any  sovereign  or  nation  could  claim  the  exclusive  right  to  navi- 
gate the  ocean,  since  its  occupation  was  contrary  to  the  course 
of  nature  and  public  usage ;  and  concluded  by  declaring  that  all 
nations  were  at  liberty  to  navigate  the  ocean,  since  the  use  of 
the  sea  is  common  to  all  like  the  air.  (Camden,  "Annals, 
1580.") 

In  vain  did  Alberico  Gentilis  advise  the  English  court  that 
the  Spanish  pretensions  constituted  no  cause  for  war.  The 
power  of  resistance  to  the  Spanish  restrictions  had  been  gather- 
ing in  IsTorthern  Europe,  particularly  in  England.  The  in- 
sistence of  Spain  on  the  observance  of  her  exclusive  rights  in  all 
appropriated  seas,  intensified  by  other  arrogant  claims,  cul- 
minated in  the  expedition  of  the  Armada.  The  defeat  of  this 
enormous  fleet  shattered  the  maritime  strength  of  Spain,  and 
though  the  union  with  Portugal  continued,  until  terminated  by 
the  revolt  of  December  3,  1640,  Spanish  supremacy  upon  the 
seas  ceased  to  exist.     England,  by  this  decisive  victory,  settled 


72  INTERNATIONAL    WATERWAYS 

the  disputed  question:  wlietlier  maritime  nations,  other  than 
Spain,  were  to  be  permitted  to  undertake  extensive  over-seas 
enterprises,  and  to  extend  these  activities  into  the  l^ew  World. 
Through  the  enterprise  of  the  Dutch  and  English  seamen,  the 
center  of  maritime  enterprise  was  transferred,  almost  immedi- 
ately, from  Cadiz,  Lisbon,  and  Barcelona,  to  Amsterdam  and 
London. 

The  English  fully  realized  the  wisdom  of  Lord  Bacon's  dec- 
laration that  the  rule  of  the  sea  is  the  epitome  of  monarchy ;  ad- 
vising that  England  should  conquer  Spain  in  order  to  enjoy  the 
rich  heritage  of  the  Spanish  carrying  trade  and  the  wealth  of 
the  numerous  Spanish  colonies.  ^Nevertheless,  the  Netherlands 
surpassed  England  in  the  development  of  maritime  resources, 
and,  in  consequence,  the  hostility  of  England  was  directed 
against  the  menace  of  the  growing  Dutch  sea-trade.  The  or- 
ganization of  the  Dutch  East  India  Company,  which  was  char- 
tered May  20,  1602,  with  a  capital  of  $2,750,000,  indicates  the 
Dutch  appreciation  of  the  unlimited  possibilities  of  the  newly 
acquired  trade  and  of  the  necessity  of  adequate  capital  to  develop 
the  inherent  resources,  properly.  Although  the  Dutch  Republic 
was  merely  a  loose  federation  of  seven  sovereign  provinces, 
which  had  united  in  revolt  against  the  tyranny  of  Philip  II,  it 
acquired  increasing  wealth  and  commercial  supremacy,  due 
largely  to  the  fortunate  situation  of  Holland  at  the  mouth  of 
the  Rhine,  the  highway  of  Central  Europe. 

The  Dutch,  unlike  the  Spaniards,  the  Portugiiese,  the  Danes, 
and  later,  the  English,  sought  to  establish  no  restrictions  on  the 
free  navigation  of  the  sea,  consistently  maintaining  the  princi- 
ple that  the  open  ocean  was  incapable  of  appropriation.  When 
Gentilis  attempted  to  vindicate  restrictions  of  the  open  sea  in  his 
"  Advocatio  Hispanica  "  (1613),  during  the  struggle  between 
Philip  II  and  the  United  Provinces,  Grotius  assailed  the  claim, 
as  he  had  earlier  contested  the  pretensions  of  the  Portuguese  to 
property  rights  in  the  Eastern  Seas;  affirming  that  every  nation 
should  exercise  the  unrestricted  enjoyment  of  the  seas. 

The  beneficent  influence  of  the  Dutch  was  not  destined  to 


THE    SOVEEEIGNTY    OF    THE    SEAS 


T3 


endure.  England  enjoyed  a  peculiar  strategic  position  on  the 
Channel  and  the  North  Sea,  assuring  ultimate  success  to  the 
design  of  stifling  Dutch  commerce.  The  preponderant  wealth 
of  England  was  still  upon  land,  while  that  of  the  Dutch  was  in 
ships ;  consequently,  during  the  wars  which  ensued,  the  Dutch 
suffered  severely.  Every  ship  and  cargo  which  was  captured 
enriched  the  English  and,  correspondingly,  weakened  the 
Dutch.  The  alliance  of  France  with  England  in  the  prosecution 
of  the  war  against  Holland  accelerated  the  decline  of  the  United 
Provinces. 

England  and  France  now  entered  upon  a  long-continued  con- 
test over  the  distribution  of  the  vast  Dutch  inheritance,  both 
seeking  to  extend  their  commercial  and  maritime  interests. 
England  was  soon  enabled  to  achieve  enhanced  prestige  upon 
the  seas  through  a  more  rigid  enforcement  of  certain  claims  to 
sovereignty  over  the  Four  Seas  of  England,  based  upon  cus- 
toms, memorials,  and  treaties,  sanctioned  by  the  practice  of 
preceding  centuries.  France  had  exhibited  no  similar  interest 
in  acquiring  exclusive  domain  over  any  portion  of  the  open 
sea,  nor  was  any  belated  attempt  made  to  change  the  French 
policy  in  this  respect. 

Eolle  records  a  document  of  King  Alfred's  reign  which  con- 
siders the  seas  surrounding  England  as  appendant  to  the  king- 
dom, since  the  King's  sovereignty  extends  throughout  the  land 
into  the  middle  of  the  Four  Seas,  which  are  in  consequence,  sub- 
ject to  the  law  of  the  Crown.  (Rolle,  "  English  King's  Bench 
Eeports  Abridged,"  I,  528,  paragraph  #1.)  The  Four  Seas, 
as  defined  by  Selden,  were  those  seas  which  surrounded  Eng- 
land, comprising; 

The  Western,  including  the  Scotch  and  Irish  Seas; 
The  Northern  or  North  Sea ; 
The  Eastern  or  German  Ocean; 

The  Southern,  including  the  English  Channel  and  the  Bay  of 
Biscay. 

(Selden,  "  Mare  Clausum,"  Lib.  II,  cap.  1.) 

England  exercised  exclusive  sovereignty  in  the  Four  Seas, 


74  INTERNATIONAL    WATERWAYS 

with  the  exception  of  the  sea  lying  southward.  In  considering 
Sir  John  Constable's  case,  the  court  decided  that  the  "  interest 
of  the  Queen  in  the  sea  extends  into  the  Middle  of  the  Sea,  be- 
twixt England  and  Spain.  But  the  Queen  hath  the  whole  juris- 
diction of  the  sea  between  England  and  France,  &c.,  &c.,  .  .  . 
And  so  it  is  of  Ireland."  ("  The  Queen  (Elizabeth)  vs.  Sir 
John  Constable,"  (Leonard,  "  Eeports,"  VoL  III,  72.)^ 

In  virtue  of  dominion  over  the  Four  Seas,  England  demanded 
homage  to  the  flag  from  Stadtland  (Norway)  to  Cape  Finisterre 
(Spain),  while  at  intervals  there  was  an  evident  disposition  to 
extend  this  claim  to  Gibraltar.  Endeavoring  to  establish  the 
legality  of  this  sovereignty,  Selden  argued  that  the  publication 
of  the  Laws  of  the  Sea  from  Oleron  at  the  instance  of  Richard  I, 
proved  that  the  kings  of  England  had  promulgated,  for  cen- 
turies, laws  for  the  government  of  these  seas,  and,  furthermore, 
that  respect  and  obedience  had  been  accorded  them.  And  Sir 
Leoline  Jenkins  in  his  "  Charge  to  the  Cinque  Ports  "  declared 
"  that  the  Western  World  received  them  (the  Laws  of  Oleron) 
from  England,  by  way  of  defence  to  the  sovereignty  of  our 
Kings  in  the  British  Ocean  and  to  the  judgement  of  our  coun- 
trymen in  sea  affairs."  As  judge  of  the  Court  of  Admiralty 
in  the  reign  of  Charles  II,  Sir  Leoline  Jenkins  further  asserted 
the  king's  sovereignty  within  the  Four  Seas,  and  declared  that 
it  was  his  right  and  province  "  to  keep  the  public  peace  on 
those  seas;  ...  to  preserve  his  subjects  and  allies  in  their 
possessions  and  properties  upon  these  seas,  and  in  all  freedom 
and  security  to  pass  to  and  fro  on  them,  upon  their  lawful  occa- 
sions " ;  and  he  further  extended  this  authority  and  jurisdiction 
of  the  king  "  to  preserve  the  public  peace  and  to  maintain  the 
freedom  and  security  of  navigation  all  the  world  over;  so  that 
not  the  utmost  bound  of  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  nor  any  corner  of 
the  Mediterranean,  nor  any  part  of  the  South  or  other  seas,  but 

1  Sir  Edward  Coke  states  that  "  within  the  Four  Seas "  means  within 
the  jurisdiction  of  England,  and  refers  to  an  ancient  record  of  Edward  I 
(1272-1307),  preserved  in  Coke's  "Institutes,"  Vol.  IV,  pg.  142,  in  which 
the  king  of  England  is  recognized  as  being  in  the  peaceful  possession  of 
the  sovereign  seignory  of  the  sea  of  England.  Coke,  "  Institutes  of  the 
Law  of  England,"  Vol.  II,  pg.  253. 


THE    SOVEEEIGNTT    OF    THE    SEAS  75 

that  if  the  peace  of  God  and  the  King  be  violated  upon  any  of 
his  subjects,  or  upon  his  allies  or  their  subjects,  and  the  offender 
be  afterwards  brought  up  or  laid  hold  of  in  any  of  His  Majesty's 
ports,  such  breach  of  the  peace  is  to  be  inquired  of  and  tried 
in  virtue  of  a  commission  of  oyer  and  terminer  as  this  is,  in 
such  country,  liberty,  or  place  as  His  Majesty  shall  please  to 
direct:  —  so  long  an  arm  has  God  by  the  laws  given  to  his 
viceregent  the  King."  (Queen  vs.  Keyn,  "  Law  Reports,"  II 
Exchequer  Division,  G3.)      (Scott,  "Cases,"  154.) 

In  contending  that  the  English  Crown  has  enjoyed  supremacy 
throughout  the  Four  Seas  since  earliest  times,  Selden  refers  to 
the  Ordinance  of  King  John,  issued  at  Hastings  in  the  second 
year  of  his  reign  (1200),  requiring  all  vessels,  of  whatever  na- 
tion, to  lower  sail  on  meeting  with  the  King's  ships. ^ 

As  further  evidence  of  the  real  property  rights  which  were 
claimed  within  the  Eour  Seas,  the  retention  by  England  of  the 
Channel  Islands  in  the  ISTarrow  Sea,  is  significant.  When,  in 
the  reign  of  King  John  (1199-1216),  the  French  secured 
possession  of  ISTormandy,  the  English  claimed  that  this  loss  in- 
volved the  land,  solely,  and  that  the  adjacent  seas  remained,  as 
before,  within  the  domain  of  England.  By  the  English  conten- 
tion the  coast  line  of  ISTormandy  constituted  the  boundary  be- 
tween the  two  kingdoms.  The  successful  maintenance  of  this 
position  enabled  England  to  retain  full  property  rights  in  these 
islands;  Jersey,  Guernsey,  Alderney,  and  Sark,  lying  just  off 
the  coast  of  France ;  which  had  hitherto  been  considered  an  in- 
tegral part  of  the  Duchy. 

1  "  It  was  ordained  at  Hastynges  for  lawe  and  custome  of  the  sea  in 
the  tyme  of  Kyng  John  in  the  peconde  yeare  of  his  raigne,  by  the  advice 
of  his  temporall  lordes,  that  if  the  lieutenant  of  the  Kyng  or  admirall  of 
the  Kyng  or  liis  lieutenant  in  any  voyage  appointed  by  Common  Counsell 
of  the  kyngdom  did  at  sea  meet  with  any  shyps  or  vessells  laden  or  empty 
which  would  not  stryke  and  lower  their  sailes  at  the  command  of  the 
Kyng's  lieutenant,  or  the  Kyng's  admirall,  or  his  lieutenant;  but  makeing 
resistaunce  against  those  of  the  ffleet,  that  yf  they  can  be  taken  that  they 
be  reputed  as  enemies,  and  their  shyps,  vessells,  and  goodes  taken  and 
forfeited,  as  goodes  of  enemies.  .  .  ." 

Twiss.  "Monumenta  Juridica.  Black  Book  of  the  Admiralty,"  Vol.  II, 
Part  0,  Art.  35,  pg.  129, 


Y6  INTERNATIOlSrAI.    WATERWAYS 

There  is  abundant  evidence  that  these  early  claims  of  Eng- 
land to  property  and  jurisdiction  in  the  Four  Seas  received  gen- 
eral acquiescence  among  the  sovereigns  of  Europe.  In  a  notable 
congress  of  the  sovereign  European  states  of  German  or  Roman 
origin  (1299),  convened  upon  the  initiative  of  Philip  IV  of 
France  (1268-1814),  it  was  agreed  that  the  sovereig-n  lordship 
of  the  Four  Seas  belonged  to  England  by  prescription;  for,  if 
nations  acquiesce  in  a  claim  to  exclusive  rights  of  navigation  or 
fisheries  for  a  long  period  of  time,  the  right  may  be  claimed  by 
prescription.      (Vattel,  Book  I,  Chap.  23.) 

In  a  formal  memorial,  various  maritime  states;  including 
Catalonia,  Denmark,  Fresia,  Genoa,  Germany,  Holland,  Nor- 
way, and  Zealand;  conceded  that  the  kings  of  England  from 
time  immemorial,  "  due  temps  dont  il  n'y  a  de  memoire,"  had 
been  in  peaceable  possession  of  the  exclusive  seignory  over  the 
seas  of  England ;  undertaking  all  necessary  preparations  for  the 
maintenance  of  peace,  and  ensuring  right  and  equity  between 
mariners  of  every  nation,  voyaging  through  these  waters.-^ 

In  acknowledging  the  exclusive  dominion  throughout  the 
Four  Seas,  the  right  of  England  was  vindicated  of  "  making 

1  Molloy,  "  De  jure  maritimo  et  navali,"  Vol.  I,  pg.  124,  relates  that 
"  the  Maritime  Dominion  by  the  laws  of  England  were  always  accovmted 
the  Four  Seas;  such  as  are  born  thereon  are  not  Aliens,  and  to  be  within 
them  is  to  be  within  the  Ligeance  of  the  King  and  realm  of  England.  .  .  . 
The  Records  in  the  days  of  Edward  the  Third  and  Henry  the  Fifth  pro- 
claim it,  that  those  kings  and  their  progenitors  had  ever  been  Lords  of 
the  Seas;  and  amongst  those  great  instances  of  proving  the  sovereignty 
of  the  same  is  that  famous  Record  of  Edward  the  First  and  Philip  the 
Fair  of  France  (Philip  IV),  in  which  were  the  Procurators  of  most  na- 
tions bordering  upon  the  sea,  throughout  Europe,  as  the  Genoeses,  Cata- 
lonians,  Almaines,  Zelanders,  Hollanders,  Friezelanders,  Danes,  and  Nor- 
wygians,  besides  others  under  the  Dominion  of  the  Roman  Empire,  where 
afr jointly  declare,  "  That  the  Kings  of  England,  by  right  of  said  King- 
dom from  time  to  time,  whereof  there  is  no  memory  to  the  contrary, 
have  been  in  peaceable  possession  of  the  Sovereign  Lordship  of  the  Seas  of 
England,  and  of  the  Isles  within  the  same,  with  power  of  making  and 
establishing  Laws,  Statutes,  and  Prohibitions  of  Arms,  and  of  ships  other- 
wise furnished  than  merchant-men  use  to  be,  and  of  taking  surety,  and 
afTording  safeguard  in  all  cases  where  need  shall  require,  and  of  ordering 
all  things  necessary  for  the  maintaining  of  Peace,  Right,  and  Equity, 
among  all  manner  of  People,  as  well  of  other  Dominions  as  their  own, 
passing  through  said  Seas,  and  the  Sovereign  Guard  thereof." 


THE    SOVEEEIGNTY    OF    THE    SEAS  77 

and  establishing  laws  and  statutes  and  restraints  of  arms,"  and 
"  all  other  things  which  may  appertain  to  the  exercise  of  sov- 
ereigTi  dominion." 

That  England  displayed  no  hesitancy  in  enforcing  the  recog- 
nition of  this  dominion  is  evidenced  by  reports  such  as  that  of 
Eobert  Wenyngton  of  Devonshire,  who  was  commissioned  by 
the  King  to  clear  the  sea  of  robbers. 

"  We  met  with  a  fleet  of  100  great  ships  of  Pruse,  Lubycke, 
Campe,  Rastocke,  Holand,  Selond,  and  Flanders,  betwixt 
Guernsey  and  Portland ;  and  then  I  came  aboard  the  Admiral 
and  bade  them  strike  in  the  King's  name  of  England  " ;  which 
with  "  great  insolence  they  refused  to  do  " ;  whereupon  a  hard- 
fought  battle  followed  and  "  they  yielded  all  the  100  ships  to  go 
with  me,  in  what  port  that  me  lust,  and  my  fellows ;  but  they 
fought  with  me  the  day  before  and  shot  at  us  1000  guns,  and 
quarell  out  of  number,  and  have  slain  many  of  my  fellowship 
and  maimed  also.  Wherefore  methinketh  that  they  have  for- 
feited both  ships  and  goods  at  our  Sovereign  Lord  the  King's 
will  .  .  .  and  so  I  have  brought  them,  all  the  100  ships,  within 
Wight."      ("  Paston  Letters,"  Vol.  II,  101.) 

With  the  world-wide  expansion  of  maritime  enterprise,  en- 
gendered and  developed  by  the  exceptional  opportunities  dis- 
closed by  the  unprecedented  discoveries  of  Columbus,  Vasco  da 
Gama,  Magellan,  John  Cabot,  and  other  explorers  of  the  six- 
teenth century,  the  maintenance  of  these  pretensions  to  prop- 
erty in  the  seas  became  still  more  advantageous  to  England  and, 
correspondingly,  more  onerous  to  the  other  maritime  states  of 
Europe,  particularly  those  situated  on  the  North  and  Baltic 
seas,  tributary  waters,  from  which  access  to  the  expanse  of 
ocean  could  only  be  secured  through  the  sufferance  of  England 
in  granting  passage  over  the  appropriated  Four  Seas.  Appreci- 
ating the  inherent  advantages  of  the  fortuitous  geographical 
position,  England  sought  to  enforce  still  more  stringently  the 
proclaimed  sovereignty  of  the  seas;  foreign  vessels  being  ac- 
corded a  right  of  way  only  upon  the  payment  of  tribute.  All 
foreign  vessels  within  the  Four  Seas,  whether  men-of-war  or 


78  INTEENATIONAL    WATERWAYS 

merchant  ships,  were  compelled  to  pay  honor  to  the  English 
flag;  an  act  which  symbolized  the  acknowledgment  of  English 
maritime  sovereignty.  In  character,  this  formality  was  not  a 
mere  courtesy,  exchanged  between  equals,  but  was  an  expression 
of  submission  to  the  superior  might  of  England.^ 

EoreigTi  sovereigns  enjoyed  no  immunity  from  the  stringent 
formalities  inflexibly  exacted  by  England  in  securing  the  uni- 
versal recognition  of  this  exclusive  sovereignty.  Philip  II  of 
Spain,  while  voyaging  to  England  (155-i)  with  the  intention  of 
marrying  Queen  Mary,  was  fired  upon  by  the  British  Admiral, 
for  presuming  to  fly  the  Spanish  Royal  Ensign  within  the 
British  Seas. 

Following  the  destruction  of  the  Armada  (1588),  further 
restrictions  were  enforced.  The  sovereignty  upon  the  Channel 
was  exercised  so  inflexibly  that  navigation  to  and  from  the  de- 
pendent North  Sea  virtually  came  within  the  absolute  control 
of  England ;  and  dominion  was  then  claimed  on  the  I^orth  Sea. 
In  1606,  the  King  of  Denmark,  while  on  a  voyage  from  England 
to  his  own  country,  was  compelled  to  strike  the  Danish  flag  in 
obedience  to  the  English  presumption  of  sovereignty  upon  this 
sea. 

The  wars  between  England  and  the  United  Provinces 
(1652-1672)  were  caused,  partially,  by  the  staunch  refusal  of 
the  Dutch  to  accord  the  flag-tribute  demanded  as  a  symbol  of 
the  maritime  sovereignty  of  England.  (Gardiner,  "  JSTavy  Rec- 
ords," Vol.  XIII.)     In  the  treaty  of  peace   (1653)   between 

1  In  his  "  Works,"  Vol.  VIII,  pg.  327,  Sir  Walter  Raleigh,  referring  to 
the  exclusive  dominion  exercised  by  England,  states :  "  I  .  .  .  remember 
when  one  ship  of  her  majesty's  would  have  made  forty  Hollanders  strike 
sail,  and  to  come  to  anchor.  They  did  not  then  dispute  '  de  mari  libero,' 
but  readily  acknowledged  the  English  to  be  '  domini  maris  Britannici.' " 

When  the  Spanish  fleet  was  returning  with  Anne  of  Austria,  daugh- 
ter of  the  Emperor  Maxmilian  and  espoused  to  Philip  II  of  Spain,  it 
omitted  the  customary  salute  to  the  British  vessels  while  passing  through 
the  English  Channel.  Admiral  Hawkins,  who  later  performed  distin- 
guished service  against  the  Armada,  immediately  opened  fire  from  the 
flagship  Jems,  in  which  the  whole  squadron  soon  joined,  compelling 
the  Spaniards  to  strike  their  flags,  lower  their  top-sails,  and  come  to 
anchor. 


THE    SOVEiREIGNTY    OF    THE    SEAS  T9 

England  and  the  United  Provinces,  the  duty  of  the  flag  salute 
was  stipulated  (Article  XV)  ;  this  being  the  first  instance  of  the 
incorporation  of  the  pretension  within  a  treaty.  (Schomberg, 
"  Laws  of  Ehodes,"  48.) 

From  Cape  Finisterre  to  Stadtland  England  demanded  and 
was  accorded  the  formal  recognition  of  her  sovereignty.  The 
instructions  issued  to  all  naval  officers  for  the  enforcement  of 
this  dominion  assumed  final  form  in  1691,  during  the  reign  of 
William  III: 

"  Upon  your  meeting  any  ship  or  ships  within  his  Majesty's 
seas ;  which  for  your  better  gTiidance  herein  you  are  to  take  no- 
tice that  they  extend  to  Cape  Finisterre;  belonging  to  any 
foreign  Prince  or  State,  you  are  to  expect  them  in  their  passage 
by  you  to  strike  their  top-sail  and  take  in  their  flag,  in  acknowl- 
edgment of  his  Majesty's  sovereignty  in  these  seas ;  and  if  any 
shall  refuse,  or  offer  to  resist,  you  are  to  use  your  utmost  en- 
deavor to  compel  them  thereto,  and  in  no  wise  suffer  any  dis- 
honor to  be  done  to  his  Majesty  .  .  .  You  are  further  to  take 
notice  in  his  Majesty's  seas  his  Majesty's  ships  are  in  no  wise 
to  strike  to  any ;  and  that  in  other  parts  no  ship  of  his  Majesty's 
is  to  strike  her  flag  or  top-sail  to  any  foreigner  unless  such 
foreign  ship  shall  have  first  struck;  or  at  the  same  time  strike, 
her  flag  or  top-sail  to  his  Majesty's  ship." 

In  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth  foreign  boats  were  denied 
enjoyment  of  the  fisheries  in  all  waters  immediately  adjoining 
England,  a  restriction  which  was  eventually  extended  to  com- 
prehend the  [N'orth  Sea.  The  English  sought  to  establish  the 
right  of  undivided  use  of  the  fisheries,  based  on  prescription,  in 
addition  to  the  claim  of  sovereignty  already  asserted  over  the 
ISTorth  Sea.  Sweden  and  ISTorway  had  claimed  rights  in  these 
fisheries  at  a  former  time,  but,  because  of  the  long-continued 
wars  in  Scandinavia,  had  been  unable  to  maintain  their  ex- 
clusive claims.  Consequently,  the  English  demanded  the  recog- 
nition of  their  own  exclusive  rights  on  the  ground  of  uninter- 
rupted enjoyment  for  an  extended  period,  and  forbade  all  but 
English  subjects  from  engaging  in  the  fisheries  in  waters  ar- 


80  INTERNATIONAL    WATERWAYS 

jacent  to  tlie  English  coasts  and  in  the  North  Sea,  unless  foreign 
fishermen  first  paid  the  stipulated  license  fees. 

In  1636  the  Dutch  attempted  to  fish  without  obtaining  requi- 
site licenses  from  England  and  were  immediately  driven  from 
the  l^orth  Sea  by  the  English  war-ships.  Subsequently,  a 
license  fee  of  $150,000  was  exacted  for  permission  to  continue 
in  the  enjojTnent  of  these  fisheries. 

In  the  discussion  which  had  arisen  between  Spain  and  Eng- 
land in  1580  concerning  the  alleged  violation  of  the  Spanish 
sovereigTity  within  the  Pacific  waters,  based  upon  an  indefensi- 
ble interpretation  of  the  Bulls  of  Alexander  VI,  Queen  Eliza- 
beth had  contended  that  exclusive  sovereignty  in  those  distant 
waters  would  not  be  recognized,  since  the  gift  by  Alexander  VI 
of  the  ]^ew  World,  as  alleged,  to  Portugal  and  Spain,  ex- 
clusively, was  void,  and  could  not  be  recognized  as  limiting  an 
equal  participation  by  England  in  maritime  enterprise  beyond 
the  seas.  The  position  of  England  was,  therefore,  somewhat 
anomalous  when  confronted  by  arguments  concerning  the  legal- 
ity of  the  restrictions  enforced  on  the  Eour  Seas.  Eminent 
publicists  were  enlisted  to  support  the  doctrine  of  appropriable 
seas,  and  to  condone  the  employment  of  force,  exercised  in  se- 
curing and  maintaining  the  recognition  of  the  exclusive  claims  to 
dominion.  The  English  jurists  sought  justification  by  an  ap- 
peal to  the  precedents  of  international  law,  and  the  officers  of 
the  Crown  by  untiring  eiforts  endeavored  to  obtain  formal 
recognition  of  the  dominion  by  treaties  with  various  sovereigns. 
The  halo  of  legality  was  designed  to  envelop  and  sanction  the 
ceaseless  vigilance  of  hardy  sailors  and  the  employment  of 
mighty  fleets. 

Sir  John  Selden  achieved  distinction  through  the  publication 
of  "Mare  ClaiTSum  "  (1635),  refuting  the  liberal  principles 
which  had  earlier  been  enunciated  by  Grotius  in  the  "  Mare 
Liberum"  (1609). ^ 

1  At  the  urgent  request  of  James  I,  Selden  had  undertaken  the  refuta- 
tion of  the  arguments  advanced  by  Grotius,  completing  his  treatise  in 
1618.     At  this  time,  however,  James  I  was  seeking  a  loan  from  the  king  of 


THE    SOVEREIGNTY    OF    THE    SEAS  81 

Selden  asserted  the  sovereignty  of  England  over  tlie  surround- 
ing seas  and  declared  that  by  the  law  of  nature  the  sea  was  not 
common  to  all,  but  that  it  was  capable  of  private  dominion,  like 
land.      (Selden,  "  Mare  Clausum,"  I,  cap.  19.) 

"  It  cannot  be  amiss  for  anyone  to  say,"  he  argued,  "  that  the 
seas,  which  might  pass  into  the  Dominion  of  any  person,  are  by 
the  Law  of  Dominion  shut  to  all  others  who  are  not  owners  or 
that  do  not  enjoy  such  a  peculiar  right.  .  .  .  The  sea  is  so  shut 
up  or  separated  and  secluded  for  private  Dominion  no  other- 
wise than  the  land  or  a  port."  (Selden,  ''Mare  Clausum,"  I, 
vii.) 

In  denying  the  claim  of  the  Dutch  and  other  foreigners  to 
fishing  rights  within  the  Seas  of  England,  Selden  advances  a 
still  more  comprehensive  claim,  contending  that  only  the  shores 
and  ports  of  the  sovereigns  beyond  the  sea  are  to  be  recognized 
as  the  bounds  of  the  sea  territory  of  England,  to  the  southward 
and  eastward.  To  the  north  and  west,  the  l^ew  World  and  the 
North  Pole  evidently  mark  the  limits  of  English  domain,  for 
Selden  stipulates  that  here  the  bounds  are  established  at  the 
utmost  extent  of  those  seas  which  are  possessed  by  the  English, 
Scotch,  and  Irish.  (Selden,  "Mare  Clausum,"  Book  II, 
cap.  30.) 

Enlisting  the  support  of  history  in  vindication  of  the  legality 
of  the  English  claims,  Selden  is  at  times  led  astray  by  an  ap- 
parent confusion  of  language,  since  the  same  term  does  not  in- 
variably express  the  same  idea  or  scope,  and,  consequently  the 
distinction  between  territorial  waters  and  the  open  sea  is  in- 
sufficiently defined.  ISTevertheless,  Sir  John  Selden  was  recog- 
nized as  the  foremost  exponent  of  the  doctrine  of  "  Mare 
Clausum,"  though  numerous,  eminent  and  contemporary  jurists 
sought,  in  a  similar  manner,  to  vindicate  the  claims  of  England. 

Alberico  Gentilis  upheld  the  claim  of  the  English  kings  to 

Denmark  and  forbade  the  publication  of  the  work,  fearing  that  certain 
passages  referring  to  the  dominion  of  the  seas  might  give  offense  to 
Denmark  and,  consequently,  jeopardize  the  success  of  the  negotiations. 
Twiss,  "  Black  Book  of  the  Admiralty,  I,  xiii. 


82  INTERNATIONAL    WATEEWAYS 

sovereignty  throughout  the  British  Seas  (1613)  ;  Medows,  in 
his  "  Observations  concerning  the  Dominion  and  Sovereignty  of 
the  Sea,"  approved  a  still  more  restricted  doctrine  than  that 
advanced  by  Selden ;  while  Eolle,  like  many  other  English  au- 
thorities, adopted  Selden's  view  and  urged  the  general  ac- 
ceptance of  the  principle  that  the  sea  is  the  liegance  of  the  King. 
(Eolle,  "  English  King's  Bench  Reports,"  pg.  170,  #18.) 

In  the  case  of  Ship  Money,  Rex  vs.  Hampden,  xiii  Charles  I, 
1637,  it  was  established  that  the  king  had  supreme  dominion 
both  by  land  and  by  sea,  being  owner  of  the  sea  and  of  the  soil 
beneath  the  sea.  In  the  opinion  of  the  Chief  Justice,  the  sole 
interest  and  property  of  the  sea  by  the  laws  and  policy  of  Eng- 
land rested  in  the  king ;  the  sea  and  land  constituting  one  king- 
dom, and,  in  consequence  the  subjects  of  the  sovereign  must  be 
bound  to  the  defense  of  both.  (Broom,  "  Constitutional  Law," 
pgs.  303-367.) 

Through  the  constant  employment  of  her  maritime  resources, 
assisted  in  some  degree  by  the  consensus  of  English  legal  opinion 
respecting  the  validity  of  these  claims,  England  maintained  the 
sovereignty  of  the  Eour  Seas,  while  at  the  same  time  striving 
to  destroy  the  pretensions  of  Spain  to  the  exclusive  enjoyment 
of  certain  appropriated  portions  of  the  ocean.  In  extent,  the 
Four  Seas  varied  according  to  the  fluctuating  maritime  strength 
of  England ;  at  times  including  all  waters  from  Cape  Einisterre 
to  an  indefinite  distance  northward  and  embracing  the  North 
Sea  on  the  eastward.  Again,  with  the  resumption  of  hostilities 
by  the  adversaries  of  England,  particularly  under  the  attacks  of 
the  United  Provinces  which  suffered  most  severely  from  the  ex- 
actions of  "  Mare  Clausum,"  the  exercise  of  English  sovereignty 
was  substantially  restrained,  being  limited  in  some  instances 
to  the  Channel. 

Although  England  sought  sovereignty  solely  on  contiguous 
waters,  this  appropriation  of  the  high  seas,  in  principle,  was 
quite  as  indefensible  as  the  acts  of  Spain  of  which  England  had 
complained.  In  effect,  the  pretensions  of  England  were  perhaps 
even  more  exasperating  than  those  of  Spain,  since  the  Spanish 


THE    SOVEREIGNTY    OF    THE    SEAS  83 

claims  affected  distant  waters,  while  England  had  appropriated 
waters  which  were  essential  to  the  daily  welfare  and  to  the  fu- 
ture development  of  maritime  enterprise  within  the  United 
Provinces  and  the  Scandinavian  countries.  Despite  the  exac- 
tions levied  by  England  upon  foreign  shipping  within  the  Eour 
Seas,  the  Dutch  continued  to  enjoy  an  increasing  and  lucrative 
sea-trade. 

In  an  endeavor  to  protect  English  shipping  from  the  menace 
of  foreign  competition  in  the  carrying  trade,  Parliament  passed 
the  first  comprehensive  Navigation  Act  (1651).  Heretofore, 
England  had  been  content  to  exercise  exclusive  sovereignty 
upon  the  neighboring  seas,  but  the  adoption  of  the  I^avigation 
Acts  carried  this  policy  into  distant  waters.  Though  stated 
in  terms  which  appeared,  superficially,  to  relate  only  to  the 
actual  entry  within  the  ports  of  the  kingdom  and  its  colonies,  yet 
in  effect,  due  to  subsequent  interpretation,  the  Navigation  Acts 
seriously  limited  the  freedom  of  navigation  on  the  high  seas ;  for 
it  became  the  law  in  England  and  in  Europe,  in  the  effort  to 
maintain  the  respective  colonial  restrictions,  that  when  foreign 
commerce  to  a  colony  is  prohibited,  that  it  thereupon  becomes 
unlawful  for  foreign  vessels  to  trade  in  the  adjacent  seas,  in 
the  absence  of  treaty  provisions.  This  policy  had  evolved  from 
the  mercantilist  theories  which  flourished  during  the  seventeenth 
and  eighteenth  centuries,  establishing  the  principle  that  every 
country  which  possessed  colonies  was  entitled  to  reserve  ex- 
clusive trade  privileges  for  its  own  citizens.  Colonies  were 
established  with  the  design  of  extending  the  commerce  of  the 
parent  country,  there  being  no  intention  of  founding  a  new  and 
independent  state.  So  jealously  was  colonial  trade  regarded 
that  though  commerce  might  flourish  between  two  European  na- 
tions, yet  no  permission  to  trade  with  the  respective  colonies 
could  be  implied.  War  granted  no  relaxation  of  this  rule,  even 
for  the  benefit  of  the  parent  country.  The  rule  of  war  of  1756 
established  the  principle  that  wherever  a  colonial  or  coasting 
trade  was  prohibited  to  foreign  vessels  in  time  of  peace,  no 
neutral  vessels  could  engage  in  such  trade  during  war,  with 


84  INTEEKATIONAL    WATERWAYS 

the  permission  of  the  belligerent  parent  country,  without  im- 
mediately assuming  an  enemy  character.  ISTo  neutral  could 
engage  in  a  trade  in  which  participation  was  forbidden  in  peace, 
without  being  deprived  of  the  immunities  accorded  neutral 
vessels.  ("The  Immanuel"  (1799)  2  C.  Eob.  Kep.,  186.) 
(Scott,  "  Cases,"  pg.  845.)  (Hall,  "International  Law,"  sec. 
234.)  (Phillimore,  III,  270.)  (Twiss,  II,  sec.  100.) 
(Kivier,  II,  411.)      (Bonfils,  sec.  1534.) ^ 

The  E'avigation  Acts  (1651),  designed  to  assist  in  securing 
maritime  supremacy  of  the  high  seas  by  reserving  all  coasting 
trade  to  English  ships,  manned  exclusively  by  English  sea- 
men, virtually  secured  for  British  vessels  the  monopoly  of  the 
foreign  trade.  England  defended  the  passage  of  this  statute 
as  a  municipal,  rather  than  as  a  maritime,  law,  based  on  the 
acknowledged  right  of  every  state  to  regulate  navigation  within 
its  own  waters.  Had  the  effect  of  the  Navigation  Acts,  as  well 
as  of  similar  laws  passed  by  other  European  states,  been  con- 
fined to  the  immediate  territorial  waters  of  the  kingdom  and  the 
subsidiary  colonies,  no  limitation  of  the  free  navigation  on  the 
sea  would  have  arisen.  The  subsequent  extension  or  interpre- 
tation of  these  restrictive  statutes,  however,  prohibiting  foreign 
vessels  from  navigating  in  the  adjacent  seas,  constituted  a  seri- 
ous restriction  on  the  freedom  of  the  seas. 

At  an  earlier  period,  English  statutes,  under  the  respective 
reigns  of  Edward  III  (1327-1377),  Eichard  II  (1377-1399), 

1  To  safeguard,  further,  the  enjoyment  of  the  exclusive  colonial  trade, 
Spain  organized  the  "fleet  system"  (1561)  ;  a  plan  which  was  not  aban- 
doned until  "register  ships"  were  substituted  (1748),  permitting  more 
frequent  voyages.  The  "  fleet  system  "  was  designed  to  prevent  smuggling 
with  the  American  colonies  of  Spain,  and  to  enforce  the  prohibition  of 
intercolonial  trade.  No  commerce  could  be  carried  on  between  Spain  and 
the  colonies,  or  between  the  colonies,  except  by  vessels  of  the  "  fleet " ; 
sailing  usually  but  once  a  year  in  each  direction.  This  system  became 
universal  in  1581,  when  all  the  European  colonies  of  the  world  came 
under  Spanish  dominion,  through  the  fusion  of  Spain  and  Portugal  under 
the  crown  of  Philip  II.  Later,  through  the  insistent  appeals  of  the 
American  colonies,  the  onerous  restrictions  were  somewhat  relaxed,  various 
ports  in  Spanish  and  Portuguese  America  being  opened  to  intercolonial 
trade,  extending  to  Brazil.  Foreign  vessels  were  excluded  from  this 
trade,  as  they  were  also  excluded  from  participation  in  the  "fleet." 


THE    SOVEEJEIGNTY    OF    THE    SEAS  85 

and  Henry  VII  (1485-1509),  had  restricted  the  importation  of 
various  commodities,  unless  laden  in  English  vessels.  In  the 
reign  of  Richard  II,  in  1381  and  again  in  1390,  it  was  provided 
that  no  merchandise  should  be  shipped  out  of  the  realm,  except 
in  English  vessels. 

These  statutes  were  limited  in  effect  to  the  ports  of  the  realm, 
and  the  restrictions  were  less  comprehensive  than  those  em- 
bodied in  the  Act  of  1651,  which  considered  the  colonies  as  an 
integral  part  of  England. 

The  Navigation  Act  of  October  9,  1651,  provided  that  "no 
goods  or  commodities  whatsoever,  of  the  growth  of  Asia,  Africa, 
or  America,  or  of  any  islands  belonging  to  them  "  should  be 
brought  into  England,  Ireland,  or  other  possessions  of  the  Eng- 
lish Commonwealth,  in  any  other  ships  than  those  owned,  com- 
manded, and  chiefly  manned  by  English  seamen,  under  penalty 
of  forfeiture  of  the  ship  and  its  cargo ;  and  the  Act  further  stip- 
ulated that  no  European  commodities  should  be  brought  from 
any  country  (to  England)  in  any  ship  not  owned  by  the  people 
of  the  Commonwealth,  or  the  people  of  the  country  in  which 
the  merchandise  was  produced,  under  like  penalty;  the  for- 
feiture of  the  ship  and  cargo.  ^ 

The  Long  Parliament,  by  passing  the  I^avigation  Act  of 
1651,  limited  the  carrying  trade  of  maritime  states  in  every 
part  of  Europe,  but  none  suffered  so  severely  as  the  United 
Provinces,  immediately  deprived  of  the  lucrative  trade  with 
America.  The  entire  sea-trade  of  the  Dutch  was  at  once 
jeopardized.  Before  the  passage  of  the  Act,  an  intense  compe- 
tition had  developed  between  the  English  and  the  Dutch  for 

1  Hill,  "  History  of  Diplomacy,"  III,  pg.  9 ;  Seeley,  "  The  Growth  of 
British  Policy,"  11,  pg.  25: 

"  The  Navigation  Act,  which  remained  substantially  in  force  for  nearly 
two  hundred  years,  is  the  great  legislative  monument  of  the  Common- 
wealth. It  .  .  .  laid  the  foimdation  of  the  English  commercial  empire." 
By  excluding  the  Dutch  from  the  carrying  trade  of  English  commodities, 
the  English  secured  the  monopoly  of  the  transportation  over-seas.  Hith- 
erto, the  Dutch  had  lived  and  flourished  because  of  the  extensive  carrying 
trade  which  had  developed.  Though  the  maritime  enterprise  of  the 
Netherlands  was  to  endure  another  half-century,  its  decline  began  with 
the  enforcement  of  the  Navigation  Act  of  1651, 


86  INTERN ATIONAI.    WATERWAYS 

the  carrying  trade  of  the  world.  Through  the  superior  enter- 
prise of  the  Dutch  merchants  and  sailors,  the  United  Provinces 
had  virtually  secured  the  monopoly  of  this  valuable  trade.  In 
an  endeavor  to  retrieve  lost  prestige  and  to  inflict  serious  limita- 
tions on  Dutch  commercial  supremacy,  particularly,  the  ISTavi- 
gation  Act  was  adopted. 

Heretofore,  the  United  Provinces  had  accorded  the  humble 
salute  demanded  by  the  English  of  all  foreign  vessels  within  the 
Pour  Seas,  as  tribute  to  the  sovereignty  of  England  on  these 
waters ;  the  irritation  suffered  by  the  Dutch  no  doubt  being  miti- 
gated by  a  realization  of  the  actual  maritime  prosperity  enjoyed 
through  the  rapid  development  of  their  sea-trade.  To  the 
former  limitations  within  the  IsTarrow  Seas  to  which  the  Dutch 
had  acquiesced  were  now  added  restrictions  menacing  trade  be- 
yond the  seas.  War  ensued  the  year  following  the  passage  of 
the  l^avigation  Act,  waged  for  the  supremacy  in  maritime  com- 
merce, for  sea-power. 

Pollowing  the  promulgation  of  the  Navigation  Act,  seventy 
Dutch  vessels  were  seized  before  December,  1651.  Seeking  the 
release  of  these  vessels  an  embassy  was  despatched  from  the 
United  Provinces  to  London,  but  failed  to  secure  any  modifica- 
tion of  the  statute  or  of  the  procedure  under  which  the  vessels 
were  condemned. 

Early  in  May,  1652,  the  commander  of  a  Dutch  squadron  on 
meeting  the  English  refused  to  strike  the  Dutch  ensign,  and 
the  English  opened  fire.  Pollowing  this  incident,  the  Dutch 
provided  Admiral  Tromp  with  a  command  of  forty  war-vessels 
with  explicit  orders  to  support  the  dignity  of  the  Dutch  flag  and 
to  protect  Dutch  merchant  vessels  from  seizure  and  condemna- 
tion. At  the  same  time  Robert  Blake  set  forth  with  the  English 
fleet  to  enforce  the  tribute  of  the  flag  from  all  foreign  vessels 
as  recognition  of  England's  claim  to  the  sovereignty  of  the 
ISTarrow  Seas.  Meeting  the  English  fleet,  Tromp  refused  to 
strike  the  Dutch  flag.  The  English  fired  a  broadside  to  compel 
submission  and  fighting  followed  for  several  hours,  resulting  in 
the  temporary  defeat  of  Tromp.     In  later  engagements  the 


THE    SOVEREIGNTY    OF    THE    SEAS 


87 


Dutch  were  more  successful,  and  for  a  time  Tromp  sailed  vic- 
toriously with  a  broom  at  the  mast-head  of  his  flag-ship,  signify- 
ing that  the  Dutch  had  swept  the  English  from  the  seas.  (Hill, 
"  History  of  Diplomacy,"  III,  110.) 

The  Dutch  naval  supremacy  was  short-lived.  In  the  battle 
of  the  Texel  Tromp  met  the  English  under  Monk.  The  gallant 
Dutch  admiral  was  mortally  wounded,  and  the  act  of  the  crew 
of  his  flag-ship  in  withdrawing  from  the  battle  precipitated  the 
retreat  of  the  Dutch  fleet.  The  Dutch,  having  lost  seventeen 
hundred  vessels  since  the  commencement  of  hostilities,  and  now 
confronted  by  a  still  more  serious  situation  due  to  the  decisive 
victory  of  the  English  at  the  Texel,  proposed  a  peace  which  was 
concluded  in  1654.^ 

From  the  successful  issue  of  this  brief  war,  the  English  Navy 
enjoyed  increased  prestige,  while  the  maritime  strength  of  the 
Dutch  had  been  seriously  weakened  due  to  the  excessive  loss 
of  merchant  ships. 

The  conflict  was  renewed  (1664),  as  a  result  of  Dutch  hostil-^ 
ity  to  the  still  more  exacting  stipulations  provided  by  the  Eng- 
lish Navigation  Act  of  1663.  Without  establishing  the  un- 
questioned supremacy  of  either  nation,  this  war  was  terminated 
by  the  treaty  of  Breda,  July  31,  1667.  Even  while  negotia- 
tions were  in  progress  between  the  Netherlands  and  England, 
De  Ruyter,  in  command  of  the  Dutch  fleet,  sailed  up  the  Thames 
(July  1667),  burning  dockyards  and  warehouses  at  Chatham 
and  blockading  London  for  several  weeks.  The  treaty  of  Breda 
established  a  peace  which  was  welcome  to  both  belligerents  and 
provided  that  each  was  to  retain  all  territory  captured  to  May 
20,  1667.  Though  the  Dutch  thus  obtained  Surinam,  the  Eng- 
lish enjoyed  ample  compensation  in  the  New  Netherlands,  since 

1  Important  engagements  in  the  English-Dutch  War  occurred : 
February   18/20,   1653,  beginning  near  Portland  and  ending  in  the  defeat 
of  Van  Tromp  and  de  Ruyter  off  Calais  by  Blake,  Deane,  and  Monk. 
June  2,  1653,  Blake,  Deane   (killed),  Monk  and  Penn  defeating  de  Ruyter 

and  Van  Tromp  off  the  Essex  coast. 
July   31,    1653,   off   the  Texel;    the  decisive   action   of   the   war;    Lawson, 
Monk,  and  Penn  defeating  Van  Tromp. 
Spears,  "Master  Mariners,"  pg.  174. 


88  INTERNATIONAL    WATERWAYS 

the  possibility  of  serious  colonial  disputes  with  the  ISFetherlands 
was  thus  eliminated  in  North  America.  The  acquisition  of  the 
New  Netherlands,  including  the  territory  of  New  Sweden  which 
the  Dutch  had  obtained  in  1655,  gave  England  a  continuous 
colonial  possession  along  the  Atlantic  seaboard  from  Acadia  to 
French  Florida. 

The  Navigation  Act,  however,  continued  in  force,  though 
sufficient  modifications  were  made  to  permit  Dutch  vessels  to 
engage  in  the  valuable  commerce  between  England  and  the 
Rhine ;  controlled  by  the  Dutch  through  the  inherent  advantages 
of  their  geographical  situation.  (Hill,  "  History  of  Diplo- 
macy," III,  73.)  Still  more  important,  England  insisted  that 
the  British  sovereignty  should  be  recognized  within  the  Four 
Seas  and,  consequently,  the  Nineteenth  Article  of  the  Treaty 
provided : 

"  It  is  likewise  agreed,  That  as  well  the  Ships  of  War,  as  the 
other  ships  of  the  United  Provinces,  meeting  with  the  Ships  of 
War  of  this  State  in  the  British  Seas,  shall  strike  their  Flag  and 
lower  their  Top-sail,  in  the  same  manner  as  that  has  been  per- 
formed in  any  former  time,  under  any  Government  whatsoever." 
(Art.  XIX,  Treaty  of  Peace  between  Oliver  Cromwell,  as 
Protector  of  England,  and  the  United  Provinces  of  the  Low 
Countries,  signed  at  Breda,  July' 31,  1667;  Justice,  "  Dominion 
of  the  Seas,"  pg.  542.) 

The  final  conflict  between  the  Dutch  and  the  English  arose 
through  the  efforts  of  Louis  XIV  to  secure  the  Spanish  Nether- 
lands and  to  advance  the  commercial  interests  of  France.  Louis 
was  well  aware  that  France,  much  like  England,  was  rapidly 
becoming  a  commercial  and  colonial  rival  of  the  Netherlands, 
and  it  seemed  certain  that  great  benefit  would  result  from  break- 
ing up  the  trade  monopolies  enjoyed  by  the  Dutch.  Conse- 
quently, Louis  endeavored  to  secure  the  active  support  of  Eng- 
land. Taking  advantage  of  the  controversy  between  the  Eng- 
lish king  and  Parliament,  Louis  arranged  by  the  secret  treaty 
of  Dover  (1670)  to  furnish  Charles  II  with  a  pension  suf- 
ficiently ample  to  free  him  from  further  reliance  upon  Parlia- 


THE    SOVEEJEIGNTY    OF    THE    SEAS  89 

ment,  in  return  for  which  Charles  agreed  to  withdraw  from  the 
Triple  Alliance  and  to  assist  Louis  in  the  proposed  war  against 
the  JSTetherlands. 

Louis  declared  war  against  the  ISTetherlands,  March  28,  1G72, 
and  French  troops  at  once  invaded  Holland  and  threatened  Am- 
sterdam. The  English  declared  war,  March  29,  1672,  though 
a  heavily  laden  fleet  of  Dutch  merchantmen  had  been  attacked 
several  days  before  the  formal  commencement  of  hostilities. 
Against  the  overwhelming  forces  of  the  French  and  English,  the 
cause  of  the  Dutch  was  hopeless,  and  the  Treaty  of  Westminster 
was  signed  with  England  (February,  1674),  by  which  the 
sovereignty  of  England,  in  all  parts  of  the  sea  from  Cape  Fin- 
isterre  to  Land  Van  Staten  (Norway),  was  recognized.  In  this 
treaty,  the  privilege  of  the  flag,  constituting  the  chief  cause  of 
the  war  between  England  and  the  Netherlands,  formed  a  sepa- 
rate and  important  article.  The  Dutch  agreed  "  to  make  their 
ships,  whether  single  or  in  fleets,  strike  the  flag  and  lower  the 
top-sail "  to  those  of  England,  whether  single  or  in  fleets,  pro- 
vided they  bore  the  King's  flag. 

As  the  immediate  result  of  the  Navigation  Acts,  beginning  in 
1651,  and  the  successful  termination  of  the  war  against  the 
Dutch,  the  maritime  strength  of  England  increased  enormously ; 
the  total  tonnage  in  1688  being  double  that  of  1666. 

England  Achieves  Sole  Sovereignty  of  the  Seas. —  Al- 
though England  was  enabled  to  enjoy  an  unprecedented  develop- 
ment of  maritime  enterprise,  founded  upon  the  ruin  of  the  great 
Dutch  industry,  yet  the  world-wide  supremacy  which  was 
achieved  by  the  English  merchant  marine  and  the  exclusive 
sovereignty  maintained  within  the  Four  Seas  encountered,  at 
intervals,  determined  opposition. 

Since  1689  France  had  become  a  serious  competitor  for  the 
supremacy  in  maritime  affairs  which  England  was  intent  upon 
securing.  A  critical  situation  arose  (1700),  through  the  pro- 
posed union  of  the  French  and  Spanish  kingdoms  under  the 
Bourbons.  England  perceived  that  such  a  coalition  was  des- 
tined to  result  in  a  vast  colonial  and  commercial  monopoly. 


90  INTERNATIONAL    WATERWAYS 

which  would  threaten  the  expansion  of  English  enterprise  over- 
seas. Consequently,  it  was  recognized  as  essential  for  Eng- 
land's welfare  that  France  and  Spain  be  kept  apart,  since,  in 
thus  forestalling  the  proposed  monopoly,  opportunities  would 
later  arise  for  obtaining  commercial  concessions  in  the  French 
and  Spanish  colonies  alike.  With  the  single  purpose  of  pro- 
tecting her  commercial  and  maritime  interests  through  the 
preservation  of  the  Balance  of  Power  in  Europe,  England  un- 
dertook the  War  of  the  Spanish  Succession  (1700-1713).  Eng- 
land succeeded  notably  in  this  endeavor,  the  Treaty  of  Utrecht, 
April  11,  1713,  which  terminated  the  war,  expressly  stating 
that  the  kingdoms  of  France  and  Spain  should  never  be  united. 
Moreover,  England  received  important  territorial  and  com- 
mercial concessions  which  indisputably  accorded  the  English  a 
dominant  position  in  maritime  affairs,  securing  by  the  terms 
of  the  treaty  and  the  Spanish  Asiento:  the  island  of  Minorca 
and  the  strategic  Gibraltar,  ensuring  control  upon  the  Mediter- 
ranean; a  preferential  tariff  for  British  imports  into  the  great 
port  of  Cadiz;  the  monopoly  of  the  slave  trade  in  Spanish 
America  for  thirty  years;  and  the  right  of  sending  one  ship  a 
year,  not  exceeding  five  hundred  tons  burden,  to  the  Spanish 
colony  of  Porto  Bello  on  the  Isthmus  of  Panama,  to  engage  in 
the  general  trade.  Hitherto,  the  British  had  been  for- 
bidden to  trade  with  the  Spanish  possessions  in  America,  and 
the  French  had  monopolized  the  traffic  in  slaves  everywhere  in 
the  Spanish  colonies.  (Hayes,  "  History  of  Europe,"  I,  309.) 
Although  enhanced  prestige  and  extended  opportunity  for 
the  further  expansion  of  maritime  and  commercial  enterprise 
was  achieved  by  Great  Britain  through  the  favorable  conclusion 
of  the  war  at  the  Peace  of  Utrecht,  yet  France  continued  as  a 
potential  rival  to  the  British  commercial  development  until  the 
decisive  Seven  Years'  War.  The  maritime  supremacy  of  Great 
Britain  commences  with  the  destruction  of  French  sea-power, 
and,  with  the  successful  conclusion  of  the  Seven  Years'  War,  the 
British  could  enjoy  the  undisputed  dominion  of  the  seas, 
founded  upon  a  paramount  sea-power.     France  had  constituted 


THE    SOVEEEIGNTY    OF    THE    SEAS  91 

the  last  barrier  among  the  maritime  states  of  Europe  to  the 
ultimate  dominion  on  the  seas  for  which  England  had  struggled 
through  three  centuries. 

In  the  period  immediately  following  the  Seven  Years'  War 
(1763-1778),  France  made  desperate  and  continued  efforts,  in- 
volving gi-eat  expenditures,  to  rebuild  the  navy  and  to  acquire 
the  maritime  prestige  surrendered  to  Great  Britain  as  the  result 
of  this  disastrous  war.  The  endeavor  was  futile,  though  French 
faith  in  the  ultimate  rehabilitation  continued  undiminished 
until  the  great  English  triumph  at  Trafalgar. 

Despite  the  alliance  of  Russia,  Denmark,  Sweden  and  the 
Netherlands  (1780),  familiarly  termed  the  "Armed  Neu- 
trality," Great  Britain  continued  to  enjoy  supreme  power  on 
the  seas.  Though  this  Alliance  claimed  to  exist  solely  for  the 
protection  of  neutral  commerce  from  undue  belligerent  inter- 
ference in  the  war  then  being  waged  by  England  against  the 
French  and  Spanish  colonies  and  undertook  to  define  what  con- 
stituted contraband  goods  and  to  declare  that  "  free  ships  "  made 
"  free  goods,"  it  was  in  reality  desig-ned  to  limit  the  maritime 
activities  of  Great  Britain,  who,  at  this  time,  had  no  ally  among 
the  European  states.  As  further  protecton  against  British 
molestation  of  merchantmen  on  the  high  seas,  the  Alliance 
agreed  to  a  joint  protection  of  their  commerce  and  provided 
armed  convoys  for  the  protection  of  all  vessels  granted  registry 
in  any  of  the  Allied  states.  (Foster,  "  Century  of  American 
Diplomacy,"  43.) 

The  most  remarkable  undertaking  of  the  Alliance  was  the  at- 
tempt to  restrict  the  navigation  of  foreign  powers  within  the 
Baltic.  The  unprecedented  pretension,  advanced  by  the  Four 
Powers,  that  the  surrounding  states  could,  by  their  mutual 
agreement,  convert  the  Baltic  into  a  closed  sea  for  their  own 
purposes,  prohibiting  all  outside  powers  from  carrying  on  any 
belligerent  operations  upon  the  appropriated  waters,  was  refused 
recognition  by  England,  France,  and  Holland,  who  were  then  at 
war,  these  powers  denying  the  neutrality  of  the  Baltic,  except 
for  the  duration  of  that  war. 


92  INTERNATIOlSrAL    WATERWAYS 

A  similar  restriction  was  contemplated  in  the  Treaty  of  Koes- 
kilde  (1658)  between  Sweden  and  Denmark,  in  whicli  the  con- 
tracting powers  agreed  to  exclude  foreign  ships  of  war  from  the 
Baltic.  The  convention  of  August  1,  1780,  between  Sweden 
and  Russia,  to  which  Denmark  and  Prussia  acceded,  was  the  ul- 
timate development  of  this  policy.  By  the  terms  of  this  treaty, 
the  powers  forming  the  Armed  l^eutrality  agreed  "  to  main- 
tain perpetually  that  it  is  a  closed  sea,  and  must  be  regarded  as 
such  by  its  local  position,  in  which  all  nations  may  navigate  in 
peace  and  enjoy  the  advantages  of  perfect  tranquillity;  in  con- 
sequence, they  will  undertake  all  measures  to  guarantee  that 
sea  and  its  coasts  against  all  hostilities,  piracy,  and  violence." 
(De  Martens,  "  Recueil,"  III,  175.)  (Westlake,  "Interna- 
tional Law,"  I,  201.)  (Hall,  "  International  Law,"  5th  Edit., 
148.) 

Had  this  restriction  upon  the  freedom  of  navigation  within 
the  Baltic  been  realized,  it  would  have  effected  a  union  of  these 
states  in  a  mutually  benevolent  neutrality :  "  first,  if  any  of  them 
should  be  at  war  with  an  outside  power,  shielding  its  coast  and 
commerce  in  the  Baltic  from  attack  or  blockade,  and  allowing  it 
to  receive  contraband  of  war  by  way  of  that  sea,  while  also  per- 
mitting it  to  use  the  Baltic  as  a  place  of  arms,  and  the  Sound 
as  a  sally  port  for  naval  operations  in  the  open  sea ;  secondly,  in 
case  of  war  anywhere,  allowing  neutral  Baltic  states  to  carry  on 
a  trade  in  contraband  without  interference  until  the  vessels  en- 
gaged in  it  reached  the  open  sea." 

Although  the  endeavor  of  the  Armed  Neutrality  to  close 
the  Baltic  proved  unavailing,  a  similar  restriction  was  agreed 
upon  by  the  Treaty  of  1791  between  Sweden  and  Denmark, 
stipulating  that  the  Baltic  should  always  be  regarded  as  a  closed 
sea,  against  the  belligerent  action  of  foreign  powers,  in  order 
to  secure  a  more  perfect  tranquillity  within  these  waters. 
(De  Martens,  "Recueil,"  Vol.  V,  pg.  608)  (Wheaton;  Law- 
rence edit. ;  sec.  331.) 

This  renewed  effort  to  establish  restrictions  upon  the  Baltic 


THE    SOVEREIGNTY    OF    THE    SEAS 


93 


failed,  chiefly  on  account  of  the  maritime  predominance  of  Eng- 
land. Consequently,  when  the  Czar  complained  of  the  bombard- 
ment of  Copenhagen  (1807),  referring  to  the  engagement  of 
Eussia  under  the  convention  of  1780  to  guarantee  the  tranquil- 
lity of  the  Baltic,  the  British  denied  that  the  perpetual  neutrality 
of  that  sea  had  ever  been  recognized.  (Westlake,  "  Interna- 
tional Law,"  I,  201.) 

Subsequently,  the  engagement  undertaken  by  Denmark,  pur- 
suant to  the  two  treaties  of  1857  —  one  with  the  principal  mari- 
time states  of  Europe,  and  the  other  with  the  United  States  of 
America,  by  which  Denmark  agreed  to  the  amortization  of  the 
Sound  dues  —  served  to  compose  further  agitation  of  this  ques- 
tion until  it  was  recently  revived  during  the  first  decade  of  the 
twentieth  century. 

As  formerly,  the  attempt  to  limit  the  free  navigation  of  the 
Baltic,  to  distinguish  between  the  rights  of  the  military  and  the 
mercantile  flags  within  this  sea,  brought  forth  an  immediate 
denial.  British  war-ships  were  immediately  despatched  to  the 
Baltic.  Confronted  with  this  exhibition  of  British  sea-power, 
prepared  for  the  immediate  vindication  of  the  freedom  of  the 
seas,  all  further  effort  to  undertake  the  proposed  restrictions 
were  abandoned.  The  Swedish  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs 
declared  (March,  1907),  that  while  the  treaty  of  1857  does  not 
relate  to  ships  of  war,  being  restricted  by  its  context  to  merchant 
vessels,  that  nevertheless  the  Baltic  is  a  "  mare  liberum,"  and 
the  Sound  a  free  strait  for  ships  of  war,  as  well  as  for  mer- 
chant vessels,  according  to  the  general  principles  of  international 
law.      (Westlake,  "International  Law,"  I,  204.) 

A  limitation  directed  at  the  maritime  supremacy  of  Great 
Britain,  following  the  close  of  the  Seven  Years'  War;  a  limita- 
tion which  affected  the  rights  of  all  maritime  states;  arose 
through  the  re-assertion  of  the  century-old  claims  of  Denmark  to 
the  exclusive  enjoyment  of  the  fisheries  throughout  the  seas  lying 
between  the  Danish  coasts  of  Norway  and  Iceland,  and  to  extend 
the  prohibition  so  as  to  embrace  the  exclusion  of  foreign  fishing 


94  INTERNATIONAL    WATEEWATS 

vessels  from  the  waters  within  fifteen  miles  of  the  Greenland 


coast. 


The  claim  of  Denmark  to  the  exclusive  right  to  fish  within 
the  waters  lying  between  Iceland  and  ^Norway  was  based  on  the 
right  of  property  in  the  adjace'it  coasts,  and,  in  this  respect,  was 
comparable  to  the  claims  of  England  to  the  waters  of  the  Chan- 
nel bounded  by  the  lands  of  the  Crown  in  England  and  upon  the 
Continent.  Henry  VII  of  England  admitted  the  right  of  Den- 
mark to  demand  licenses  of  all  foreign  vessels  fishing  in  the 
appropriated  seas,  and  signed  a  covenant  with  John  II  of  Den- 
mark (1485),  by  which  it  was  agreed  that  English  vessels  would 
be  permitted  to  fish  and  to  navigate  within  the  seas  between 
Norway  and  Iceland  only  when  provided  with  licenses  from  the 
Danish  King,  these  licenses  to  be  valid  for  a  period  of  seven 
years.  (Westlake,  "International  Law,"  I,  166.)  (Hall, 
"  International  Law,"  5th  Edit.,  111.)  (Justice,  "Dominion 
and  Laws  of  the  Sea"  (1705),  pg.  168.)  (Selden,  "Mare 
Clausum,"  Lib.  II,  cap.  30,  31,  32.)  (Daru,  "  Histoire 
de  Venise,"  Book  V,  sec.  21.) 

Queen  Elizabeth  sought  to  obtain  a  disavowal  of  these  claims 
from  the  king  of  Denmark,  instructing  her  ambassadors  to  the 
Danish  court  (1602)  to  undertake  negotiations  respecting  the 
Sound  dues,  at  the  same  time  that  they  endeavored  to  secure 
the  freedom  of  the  northern  seas  for  England.     In  the  effort  to 

1  By  the  convention  of  Calmar  (1397),  the  three  Scandinavian  states; 
Denmark,  Norway,  and  Sweden;  were  united  under  the  sovereignty  of 
Queen  Marguerite  of  Valdemar,  daughter  of  the  Danish  King,  Valdemar 
Atterdag,  and  the  wife  of  King  Hakon  of  Norway  and  Sweden.  Sweden, 
however,  broke  away  from  this  union,  and  established  an  independent 
kingdom  under  the  leadership  of  Gustave  Vasa,  who  was  proclaimed  king 
(1523).  By  virtue  of  this  union,  Denmark  secured  control  of  the  coasts 
of  Norway  and  based  the  extensive  claims  to  sovereignty  over  the  waters 
as  far  as  Iceland  upon  this  dominion.  Following  the  downfall  of  Napo- 
leon, the  Treaty  of  Kiel  (1814)  provided  that  Norway  should  be  de- 
tached from  Denmark  and  placed  under  the  dominion  of  Sweden.  Den- 
mark evidently  suffered  this  loss  as  a  punishment  for  endeavoring  to  re- 
main neutral  during  the  efforts  to  establish  a  continental  blockade.  The 
destructive  bombardment  of  the  capital,  Copenhagen,  by  the  English 
(1807)  resulted  from  irritation  and  apprehension  aroused  by  Denmark's 
endeavor  to  continue  neutral. 


THE    SOVEREIGNTY    OF    THE    SEAS  95 

secure  a  renunciation  of  these  exclusive  fishery  rights  from  the 
king  of  Denmark,  Queen  Elizabeth  declared  (1602)  that  the 
"  law  of  nations  alloweth  of  fishing  in  the  sea  everywhere,  even 
in  seas  where  a  nation  hath  property  of  command." 

In  substance,  the  arguments  advanced  by  England  were  sim- 
ilar to  those  employed  earlier  (1580)  in  the  effort  to  refute  the 
Spanish  claim  to  dominion  in  the  waters  of  the  Pacific,  follow- 
ing the  protest  of  the  Spanish  ambassador,  Mendoza,  because  of 
the  alleged  violation  by  Sir  Erancis  Drake  of  the  maritime 
rights  of  Spain.  The  attempt  of  Denmark  to  reafiirm  the  an- 
cient, exclusive  rights  to  the  fisheries  in  the  northern  seas,  and 
the  endeavor  to  establish  similar  limitations  within  fifteen  miles 
of  the  Greenland  coast,  met  immediate  opposition.  The  rep- 
resentations from  the  governments  of  England  and  Holland, 
whose  interests  were  especially  affected,  caused  the  Danish  gov- 
ernment to  withdraw  the  claim,  definitely. 

Despite  the  British  demand,  toward  the  close  of  the  eighteenth 
century,  that  Denmark  should  renounce  all  claim  to  the  exclusive 
enjoyment  of  the  fisheries  in  the  northern  seas.  Great  Britain, 
quite  inconsistently,  continued  to  exact  the  humble  tribute  to 
British  dominion  in  the  ISTarrow  Seas,  provided  for  in  the  IS^aval 
Instructions  of  William  III  (1691)  :  "  Upon  your  meeting 
with  any  ship  or  ships  within  his  Majesty's  seas ;  which  for 
your  better  guidance  herein  you  are  to  take  notice  that  they 
extend  to  Cape  Finisterre;  belonging  to  any  foreign  Prince  or 
State,  you  are  to  expect  them  in  their  passage  to  strike  their 
top-sail  and  take  in  their  flag,  in  acknowledg-ment  of  his  Ma- 
jesty's sovereignty  in  these  seas;  and,  if  any  shall  refuse,  or 
offer  to  resist,  you  are  to  use  your  utmost  endeavor  to  compel 
them  thereto,  and  in  nowise  to  suffer  any  dishonor  to  be  done 
to  his  Majesty.  .  .  ." 

By  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century  no  European  nation 
could  disregard  with  security  these  inflexible  stipulations  which 
had  been  enforced  for  more  than  one  hundred  years  as  sym- 
bolizing the  British  command  of  the  seas.  With  the  dawn  of 
the  new  century,  the  renaissance  of  France,  engendered  by  the 


96  INTERNATIONAL    WATERWAYS 

Revolution  and  matured  through  the  genius  of  I^apoleon,  chal- 
lenged the  pretensions  of  Great  Britain  to  the  exclusive  dominion 
of  the  Four  Seas.  Napoleon  recognized  the  limitations  which 
France  must  endure  while  the  sea-power  of  Great  Britain  re- 
mained predominant.  Stimulated  by  the  urgent  necessity,  the 
allied  French  and  Spanish  fleets  within  the  harbor  of  Cadiz 
undertook  extensive  preparations  to  shatter  the  maritime 
strength  of  Great  Britain.  Issuing  forth  (October  21,  1805), 
the  Allied  fleet  engaged  the  British  under  command  of  Lord 
Nelson. 

The  three-century  struggle  for  maritime  supremacy,  waged 
continuously  since  the  epoch-making  discoveries  at  the  close  of 
the  fifteenth  century,  terminated  at  Trafalgar.  Thereupon, 
Great  Britain,  the  ultimate  exponent  of  the  restrictive  policy  of 
maritime  appropriation,  a  policy  which  was  clearly  inconsistent 
with  the  former  endeavors  of  England  to  vindicate  the  essential 
freedom  of  international  waterways,  enjoyed  the  undisputed  Sov- 
ereignty of  the  Seas. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE   FREEDOM    OF    THE    SEAS 

From  the  second  year  in  the  reign  of  King  John  (1200) 
until  the  year  immediately  following  the  victory  at  Trafalgar, 
England  had  asserted  exclusive  sovereignty  upon  the  Four  Seas, 
and,  throughout  this  period  of  six  hundred  years,  had  enforced 
the  claim  to  dominion  with  substantial  success,  although  the  ap- 
propriated area  varied  considerably  according  to  the  fluctuation 
of  British  sea-power. 

Other  maritime  nations  —  Spain,  Portugal,  Venice,  Den- 
mark —  had  asserted  similar  claims  to  sovereignty  or  dominion 
over  the  open  sea,  particularly  upon  appreciating  the  opportun- 
ities disclosed  by  the  over-seas  discoveries  in  the  fifteenth  and 
sixteenth  centuries.  ISTevertheless,  especial  interest  attaches  to 
the  claims  of  exclusive  sovereignty  on  the  Eour  Seas,  advanced 
by  England,  in  part,  because  these  claims  were  maintained 
for  a  longer  period  than  similar  pretensions  asserted  by  any 
European  power,  being  accorded  formal  recognition  by  treaties 
with  various  maritime  states,  but,  chiefly,  because  England 
eventually  became  the  sole  exponent  of  the  doctrine  of  "  mare 
clausum,"  enforced  with  predominant  sea-power,  until  the  pol- 
icy was  ultimately  abandoned,  voluntarily.  The  Admiralty 
Instructions  of  1805  retained  the  stipulation  of  1691  that  com- 
manders of  British  war-vessels  should  exact  the  tribute  of  the 
flag  from  all  foreigners  in  the  Four  Seas.  Because  of  the  ten- 
acity with  which  Great  Britain  adhered  to  the  policy  of  do- 
minion over  the  waters  within  this  extended  area,  the  negotia- 
tions which  had  been  satisfactorily  concluded  with  the  United 
States  (1803)  were  not  ratified  by  Great  Britain  because  the 
agreement  contemplated  the  abandonment  of  the  right  of  search 
within  the  Four  Seas,  during  peace,  of  vessels  of  the  United 
States. 


98  INTERNATIONAL    WATEEWAYS 

Legality  of  Sovereignty  Supported. —  Eminent  jurists  had 
endeavored  to  support  the  legality  of  the  exclusive  claims  of 
England.  Their  arguments,  combined  with  the  formal  recog- 
nition of  England's  claims  as  embodied  in  certain  treaties, 
were  advanced  to  vindicate  the  justice  of  dominion  exercised 
within  the  Eour  Seas. 

Sir  John  Selden,  endeavoring  to  ascertain  the  basis  of  Eng- 
land's claim  to  the  sovereignty  of  the  seas,  declared  (Mare 
Clausum)  that  long  before  the  advent  of  Julius  Csesar,  the 
ancient  Britons,  then  lords  of  Great  Britain,  were  sovereign 
upon  the  surrounding  seas :  "  The  Gauls  were  utterly  ignorant 
of  these  shores  (Albion  in  the  time  of  Csesar)  because  they 
were  prohibited  entrance,  and  so  excluded  from  the  free  use 
of  the  sea,"  ^ 

From  this  statement  Selden  argued  that  because  the  Britons 
excluded  all  foreigners  from  their  territory  that  they  conse- 
quently held  the  sea  as  part  of  their  domain,  thereby  disclosing 
a  confusion,  which  frequently  occurs  throughout  the  treatise, 
between  the  right  of  entry  into  territorial  waters  or  ports,  and 
the  freedom  of  navigation  on  the  high  seas.  In  bringing  up  the 
legality  of  dominion  based  upon  prescription,  Selden's  argu- 
ment is  less  vulnerable,  for  he  demonstrates  that  the  claims 
of  the  Norman  and  Plantagenet  kings  were  accorded  formal 
recognition  by  various  sovereigns.  Selden  defended  the  appro- 
priation of  the  high  seas  on  the  ground  that  the  usage  of  all 
nations  permits  the  acquisition  of  seas  as  a  part  of  the  national 
domain,  and  Vattel,  at  a  later  time,  supported  the  validity  of 
treaties  which  recogTiized  such  exclusive  rights ;  for : 

"  As  everyone  is  free  to  renounce  his  right,  a  ISTation  may 
acquire  exclusive  rights  of  navigation  and  fishing  by  treaties  in 
which  other  nations  renounce  it.  .  .  .  The  latter  are  bound  to 
observe  such  treaties;  and  the  nation  in  whose  favor  they  are 
made  has  the  right  to  keep  possession  of  its  advantages  by 

1  Sir  John  Burroughs,  "  Soveraignty  of  the  Seas,"  pg.  7,  endeavors  to 
prove  by  "  Caesar's  Commentaries "  that  even  "before  the  Eoman  Con- 
quest, the  British  Nation  had  the  supreame  power  and  command  of  their 
owne  seas  without  the  competition  of  any  other  nations  whatsoever." 


THE    FREEDOM    OF    THE    SEAS  »» 

force.  It  was  in  this  way  that  Austria  renounced,  in  favor  of 
England  and  Holland,  the  right  to  send  vessels  from  the  Nether- 
lands to  the  East  Indies."  (Vattel,  Vol.  I,  Book  I,  Chap, 
xxiii,  sec.  284.) 

Sir  Leoline  Jenkins,  during  Admiralty  sessions  at  Old  Bailey, 
charged  that  "...  Every  Englishman  knows  that  his  Majesty 
hath  an  undoubted  Empire  and  Soveraigiity  in  the  seas  that 
environ  these  his  Kingdoms,  which  by  the  ancient  Statute  Laws ; 
18  Edward  I,  de  mo.  Levandi  fines;  are  called  the  quatuor 
Maria,  by  Foreigners,  and  by  our  modern  Treaties,  the  British 
Seas.  .  .  .  But  besides  these  Eour  Seas,  which  are  the  pe- 
culiar Care,  and  as  it  were,  Part  of  the  Domaine  of  the  Crown 
of  England,  his  Majesty  hath  a  Concern  and  Authority;  in 
Eight  of  his  Imperial  Crown ;  to  preserve  the  publick  Peace  and 
to  maintain  the  Freedom  and  Security  of  ISTavigation  all  the 
World  over.  .  .  .  You  are,  therefore,  to  enquire,  if  any  For- 
eign Ship,  Man  of  War,  or  other,  being  met  with  in  any  Part 
of  the  Four  British  Seas,  hath  refused  to  strike  her  Flag,  and 
lower  her  Top-sail,  to  any  of  his  Majesty's  Ships  or  Vessels, 
carrying  his  Majesty's  Flag,  Ensign,  or  Jack.  Or  if  any  Cap- 
tain or  Commander  of  any  Ship  or  Vessel,  carrying  the  King's 
Flag,  Jack,  or  Ensign,  hath  not  demanded  that  Eespect  due  to 
the  King's  Colours,  when  it  was  delayed,  or  refused,  or  not 
paid  at  the  due  Time,  and  after  the  accustomed  Manner,  and 
hath  not  pursued  such  refusers  as  Pirates."  (Charge  given  by 
Sir  Leoline  Jenkins  at  Admiralty  Sessions  in  Wynne's  "  Life 
of  Sir  L.  Jenkins,"  Vol.  I,  pg.  xc-xcv.)^ 

1  Clavell,  "  His  Majesties  Propriety,"  pg.  1 ;  "  The  King  of  Great 
Britain  is  Lord  of  the  sea  flowing  about,  as  an  inseparable  and  perpetual 
appendant  of  the  British  Empire." 

Sir  Philip  Medows,  "  Soveraignty  of  the  Seas,"  pg.  7,  affirms  Eng- 
land's right  of  "  exclviding  all  foreign  Ships  of  War  from  passing  upon 
any  the  seas  (sic)  of  England  without  special  license  for  that  purpose  first 
obtained,"  and  then  proceeds  to  demonstrate  that  Sea-Dominion  and  rights 
of  property  are  identical  conceptions,  for :  "  he  who  affirms  a  Sea-Do- 
minion, and  by  it  understands  anything  less  than  Property,  embraces  a 
Cloud  for  Juno.  .  .  .  Seas  .  .  .  receive  their  Denominations  from  the 
shoars  they  rowle  upon,  and  Our  Seas  are  the  Seas  which  rowle  upon 
Our  Shoars." 


100  INTEEN^ATIONAL    WATERWAYS 

Sir  John  Burroughs  concludes  an  extended  argument  in  sub- 
stantiation of  England's  absolute  right  of  sovereignty  on  the 
seas  by  saying :  "  And  therefore  the  Soveraignty  of  our  Seas 
being  the  most  precious  Jewell  of  his  Majesties  Crowne,  and 
(next  under  God)  the  principall  meanes  of  our  Wealth  and 
Safetie,  all  true  English  hearts  and  hands  are  bound  by  all 
possible  meanes  and  diligence  to  preserve  and  maintaine  the 
same,  even  with  the  uttermost  hazzard  of  their  lives,  their 
goods  and  fortunes."  (Burroughs,  "  Soveraignty  of  the  Seas," 
pg.  56.) 

"  Mare  Liberum,"  declared  Secretary  Coke  to  Sir  James 
Boswell,  the  English  resident  at  The  Hague  (1635),  "  must  be 
answered  with  a  defense  of  Mare  Clausum,  not  so  much  by  dis- 
course, as  by  the  louder  language  of  a  powerful  navy;  to  be 
better  understood,  when  our  strained  patience  seeth  no  hope 
of  preserving  her  right  by  other  means."  (Penn,  "  Memorials," 
Vol.  I,  513;  Campbell,  "Lives,"  II,  116.)i 

Maintenance  of  Restrictions  Exhausting. —  Restrictions 
such  as  these  bore  heavily  upon  nations  of  lesser  sea-power. 
Ultimate  resistance  to  such  pretensions  was  inevitable.  Con- 
sequently, an  onerous  and  incessant  expenditure  was  entailed  to 
ensure  the  continued  observance  of  sovereignty  within  the  ap- 
propriated areas.  With  the  exception  of  Great  Britain,  all 
the  maritime  powers  of  Europe  had  relinquished  all  extensive 
claims  to  dominion  in  the  seas  by  the  commencement  of  the 

1  G.  F.  de  Martens,  "  Summary  of  the  Law  of  Nations,"  pg.  161,  writ- 
ing in  1795,  considers  that  the  seas  which  are  acknowledged  to  be  free 
are:  the 

Spanish  Sea  North  Sea  Mediterranean   Sea 

Aquitain  Sea  White  Sea  Straits  of  Gibraltar; 

while  those  which  are  restricted  by  the  dominion  of  some  nation  and  con- 
sidered as  an  integral  part  of  the  national  domain  comprise: 
The  three  straits  between  Denmark  and  Sweden,  claimed  by  Denmark; 
St.   George's   Channel,   between   Scotland   and   Ireland,   claimed   by   Great 

Britain ; 
The  Straits  of  Sicily,  between  Italy  and  Sicily,  claimed  by  the  king  of 

Sicily; 
The  Gulf  of  Bothnia,  claimed  by  Sweden; 
The  Black  Sea,  the  ^gean  Sea,  and  Bosphorus  of  Thrace,  the  Propontus, 

and  the  Hellespont,  claimed  by  Turkey. 


THE    FEEEDOM    OF    THE    SEAS  101 

nineteentli  century.  The  effort  entailed  to  secure  the  exclusive 
benefits  of  the  sea,  exerted  repeatedly  since  the  Age  of  Dis- 
covery, proved  too  exhausting,  nor  had  any  real  or  lasting  bene- 
fit resulted  from  the  maintenance  of  maritime  dominion,  for  the 
cost  was  disproportionate.  Largely  on  this  account,  nations 
accepted  the  freedom  of  the  seas,  in  principle,  while  the  adher- 
ence of  Great  Britain  to  the  obsolescent  policy  of  restriction 
remained  an  unique  exception  to  the  general  European  practice. 
Great  Britain  had  achieved  predominance  through  the  defeat  of 
the  maritime  claims  and  aspirations  of  rival  European  states 
during  three  centuries  of  hostilities  and  was  loath  to  relinquish 
the  position  so  difiicult  to  attain.  But  the  changing  conditions 
of  maritime  enterprise  compelled  Great  Britain  to  realize  the 
futility  of  continuing  the  enforcement  of  the  restrictive  policy. 
British  dominion  of  the  seas,  because  of  the  changing  industrial 
conditions  of  the  nineteenth  century,  did  not  seem  destined  to 
achieve  adequate  commercial  advantages  to  compensate  for  the 
exhausting  efforts  of  control  on  the  J^arrow  Seas ;  a  control 
which  would  become  increasingly  difficult  with  the  inevitable 
union  among  the  maritime  states  of  Europe  for  successful  re- 
sistance. Moreover,  upon  the  termination  of  the  Napoleonic 
wars,  England  was  enabled  to  develop  far  more  rapidly  in 
maritime  enterprise  and  industry  than  any  other  European 
nation.  The  vast  aggressions  of  Napoleon  had  devastated  in- 
dustry throughout  Europe,  and  the  process  of  rehabilitation 
was  necessarily  slow.  England,  because  of  her  fortunate  in- 
sular position  and  the  supremacy  of  her  navy,  escaped  virtually 
unscathed.  The  modern  and  unprecedented  development  of 
industry  and  transportation,  founded  upon  the  application  of 
steam  power,  was  commencing  and  England  was  enabled  to 
adapt  her  commerce  and  industry,  immediately,  to  the  changed 
and  more  favorable  conditions.  In  consequence.  Great  Britain 
recognized  that  the  expansion  of  national  enterprise  neces- 
sitated peace,  the  observance  of  the  status  quo,  and  that  the 
unrestricted  use  of  the  seas  was  of  paramount  necessity  for  the 
most  favorable  development  of  maritime  enterprise. 


102  INTEElSTATIOlSrAL    WATERWAYS 

The  Freedom  of  the  Seas. —  Under  these  circumstances 
Great  Britain  was  disposed  to  admit  tlie  illegality  of  restric- 
tions upon  the  free  navigation  of  the  open  sea.  The  reason 
and  justice  inherent  in  the  arguments  for  Mare  Liberum,  ad- 
vanced by  eminent  publicists,  Bynkershoek,  PufendorfF,  Gen- 
tilis,  Vattel,  and  particularly  by  the  celebrated  treatise  of 
Grotius  (1609)  J  became  tardily  manifest.  During  the  sixteenth 
and  seventeenth  centuries  when  Spain,  Portugal,  Denmark,  and 
England  sought  to  establish  their  respective  sovereignties 
throughout  the  wide  expanse  of  the  open  sea,  scant  heed  was 
accorded  the  jurists  who  had  ardently  defended  the  freedom 
of  the  seas,  endeavoring  by  historical  example  and  cogent  reas- 
oning to  establish  the  illegality  of  the  attempted  appropriations. 
Ange  de  Ubaldis  declared  that  the  sea  and  the  shores  of  the 
sea  were  free  for  the  enjoyment  of  all  nations,  by  virtue  of 
the  law  of  nature  and  nations,  and,  furthermore,  demonstrated 
the  impossibility  of  acquiring  property  in  the  sea,  since  the 
physical  circumstances  made  it  impossible  to  fulfill  the  obliga- 
tion of  long  occupation,  necessary  to  render  an  object  susceptible 
of  possession.  (Nys,  Acad.  Roy.  Belgique ;  "  Lettres  "  ;  Bul- 
letin, Series  3,  1900,  pg.  81.) 

Grotius  assailed  claims  of  sovereignty  upon  the  seas  still 
more  bitterly,  and  drew  forth  a  rejoinder  from  Sir  John  Selden 
(16?5),  who  undertook  the  defense  of  England's  exclusive  do- 
minion over  the  Four  Seas.  Though  Grotius  was  not  the  first 
jurist  to  defend  the  freedom  of  the  seas,  yet  his  comprehensive 
treatise  was  destined  to  exert  a  profound  influence,  subse- 
quently, because  of  its  innate  justice.  Condemning  the  pre- 
tensions of  the  Portugaiese,  specifically,  to  private  property  in  the 
Eastern  seas,  Grotius  argued  that  the  sea  was  free  to  all  who 
owned  ships  and  wished  to  use  it  as  a  highway  for  communi- 
cating with  all  the  nations  of  the  world,  and  endeavored  to  show 
that  the  ocean  could  not  be  appropriated  justifiably  by  any  one 
nation  because  of  its  variable  nature ;  an  element  which  is  never 
the  same  and  so  lacking  the  character  necessary  in  stable  prop- 
erty, permitting  effective  occupation  and  thereby  warranting 


THE    FEEEDOM    OF    THE    SEAS  103 

ownership.  Any  nation,  Grotius  admitted,  was  competent  to 
relinquish  or  renounce  this  liberty  of  navigation  by  a  treaty  or 
some  other  expression  of  the  sovereign  vv^ill,  and  he  cited  no- 
table instances  where  this  renunciation  had  occurred.  (Grotius, 
"  De  jure  belli  et  pacis,"  Lib.  II,  cap.  iii,  sec.  15.) 

Grotius,  and  Vattel  at  a  later  period,  attached  particular  im- 
portance to  the  inexhaustible  character  of  the  sea's  benefits,  and 
the  consequent  innocent  use  of  the  sea  which  might  be  en- 
joyed by  all  nations. 

"  If  the  free  and  common  use  of  a  thing  .  .  .  were  hurtful 
or  dangerous  to  a  nation,"  Vattel  then  considered  that,  "  the  care 
of  its  own  safety  would  authorize  it  in  subjecting,  if  it  could  do 
so,  the  object  in  question  to  its  sovereignty,  so  as  to  subject  its 
use  to  such  precautions  as  prudence  might  dictate."  But  this 
was  not  the  case  on  the  high  seas,  Vattel  declared,  for  "  one 
may  sail  and  fish  without  harm  or  danger  to  any  one.  Hence 
no  nation  has  the  right  to  take  possession  of  the  high  seas,  or 
to  claim  the  sole  right  to  use  them,  to  the  exclusion  of  others." 

"  It  is  clear  that  the  use  of  the  high  seas  for  purposes  of 
navigation  and  fishing  is  innocent  in  character  and  inexhaust- 
ible ;  that  is  to  say,  one  who  sails  the  high  seas  or  fishes  therein, 
injures  no  one,  and  the  sea  in  both  these  respects  can  satisfy 
the  needs  of  all  men.  Now,  nature  does  not  give  men  the  right 
to  appropriate  things  the  use  of  which  is  innocent  and  the  sup- 
ply inexhaustible  and  sufiicient  for  all;  for,  since  each  one  can 
obtain  from  the  sea,  as  common  property,  what  will  satisfy  his 
wants,  the  attempt  to  make  oneself  sole  master  of  it  and  to 
exclude  others  would  be  depriving  them  unreasonably  of  the 
blessings  of  nature.  .  .  .  Since,  then,  the  right  of  navigating 
and  fishing  on  the  high  seas  is  common  to  all  men,  the  nation 
which  undertakes  to  exclude  another  from  that  advantage  does 
it  an  injury  and  gives  just  cause  for  war ;  for  nature  authorizes 
a  nation  to  repel  an  attack ;  that  is,  to  resist  with  force  any  at- 
tempt to  deprive  it  of  its  rights.  Let  us  go  farther  and  say 
that  a  nation  which  seeks  to  lay  claim,  without  good  title,  to 
an  exclusive  right  over  the  sea,  and  to  maintain  it  by  force. 


104  INTERNATIONAL    WATERWAYS 

does  an  injury  to  all  nations  whose  common  right  it  violates; 
and  they  may  all  unite  against  it  to  check  its  claims.  It  is 
of  the  greatest  importance  to  nations  that  the  Law  of  Nations, 
which  is  the  basis  of  their  peace,  be  everywhere  respected.  If 
any  one  openly  treads  it  underfoot  all  may  and  should  rise 
against  that  nation ;  and  by  thus  uniting  their  forces  to  punish 
their  common  enemy,  they  will  fulfill  their  duties  toward  them- 
selves and  toward  the  human  society  of  which  they  are  mem- 
bers." (Vattel,  "  Law  of  I^ations,"  Vol.  I,  Book  I,  Chap,  xxiii, 
sec.  281-283.) 

'Not  content  with  considering  the  inherent  justice  of  their 
claims  and  with  reference  to  precedent,  the  champions  of  the 
freedom  of  the  seas  appealed  to  the  principles  of  the  Koman 
Law  for  vindication,  quoting  the  passage  from  the  Institutes  of 
Justinian,  recognizing  the  common  rights  of  all  men  in  the  en- 
joyment of  the  sea: 

"  By  the  law  of  nature,  then,  the  following  things  are  com- 
mon to  all  men ;  air,  running  water,  the  sea,  and  consequently 
the  shores  of  the  sea.  No  one,  therefore,  is  debarred  from  ap- 
proaching the  sea-shore,  provided  only  he  does  not  harm  houses, 
monuments,  or  buildings,  because  these  are  not  subject  to  the 
law  of  nations  as  the  sea  is."  ("  Institutes  Justinian,"  Book 
II,  Tit.  I,  sec.  1.) 

Beginning  with  the  early  nineteenth  century,  the  opinion  was 
becoming  universal,  chiefly  because  it  was  generally  recognized 
that  free  commercial  navigation  had  become  essential  to  the 
existence  of  the  modern  world,  that  no  state  was  capable  of 
maintaining  effective  occupation  upon  the  open  sea,  and  that 
territorial  waters,  though  remaining  under  the  dominion  of 
the  adjacent  state,  should  be  held  subject  to  the  right  of  innocent 
passage  by  foreign  vessels.  It  was  generally  admitted  that  the 
sea  could  not  be  occupied,  and  that  it  was  indivisible,  inex- 
haustible, and  productive,  without  the  labor  of  man. 


THE    FEEEDOM    OF    THE    SEAS 


105 


"  Down  to  the  beginning  of  the  present  century,  the  course 
of  opinion  and  practice  with  respect  to  the  sea  had  been  as 
follows.  Originally  it  was  taken  for  granted  that  the  sea 
could  be  appropriated.  It  was  elfectively  appropriated  in  some 
instances;  and  in  others  extravagant  pretensions  were  put 
forward,  supported  by  wholly  insufficient  acts.  Gradually,  as 
appropriation  of  the  larger  areas  was  found  to  be  generally 
unreal,  to  be  burdensome  to  strangers,  and  to  be  unattended 
by  compensating  advantages,  a  disinclination  to  submit  to  it 
arose,  and  partly  through  insensible  abandonment,  partly 
through  opposition  to  the  exercise  of  inadequate  or  intermittent 
control,  the  larger  claims  disappeared,  and  those  only  continued 
at  last  to  be  recognized  which  affected  waters  the  possession  of 
which  was  supposed  to  be  necessary  for  the  safety  of  the  state, 
or  which  were  thought  to  be  within  its  power  to  command. 
Upon  this  modification  of  practice  it  may  be  doubted  whether 
theories  affirming  that  the  sea  is  insusceptible  of  occupation 
had  any  serious  influence.  They  no  doubt  accelerated  the  re- 
strictive movement  which  took  place,  but  outside  the  realm  of 
books  they  never  succeeded  in  establishing  predominant  au- 
thority. The  true  key  to  the  development  of  the  law  is  to  be 
sought  in  the  principle  that  maritime  occupation  must  be  ef- 
fective in  order  to  be  valid."  (Hall,  "  International  Law," 
5th  Edit.,  pg.  151.)  (Azuni,  "  Droit  Maritime,"  Part  I,  Chap. 
II,  Art.  1.) 

The  supremacy  of  the  sea  attained  by  Great  Britain  was 
necessarily  an  isolated  position.  Reference  to  contemporaneous 
restrictions,  exerted  by  other  maritime  powers,  in  order  to  vin- 
dicate the  exercise  of  British  sovereignty  of  the  seas,  was  no 
longer  possible,  since  all  substantial  pretensions  of  this  char- 
acter had  been  destroyed  by  the  superior  power  of  the  British 
navy. 

The  Sovereignty  of  the  Seas  Voluntarily  Abandoned. — 
Confronted  by  a  radically  changed  situation  in  maritime  af- 


106  INTERNATIONAL    WATERWAYS 

fairs,  the  sovereignty  of  the  seas,  asserted  and  maintained  with 
varying  success  through  more  than  six  hundred  years,  and  ulti- 
mately secured  with  the  destruction  of  IsTapoleon's  sea-power,  was 
destined  to  prove  an  embarrassment  to  the  advancement  of  na- 
tional enterprise,  while  the  universally  admitted  injustice  of  the 
claim  threatened  the  future  security  of  the  nation.  The  British 
Admiralty  Instructions  (1805)  reciting  that  "  it  is  expected  that 
the  said  foreig-n  ships  do  strike  their  top-sail  and  take  in  their 
flag  in  acknowledgement  of  his  Majesty's  sovereignty  in  those 
seas,"  was  a  perpetual  insult  to  the  sovereigns  of  maritime 
states,  which  might  at  any  time  be  challenged  by  the  offended 
powers.  The  battles  of  the  Nile,  Saint  Vincent,  Toulon, 
Ushant,  Camperdown,  Copenhagen,  and  the  decisive  victory  off 
Cape  Trafalgar,  however,  by  annihilating  the  navies  of  Europe, 
assured  the  continued  enforcement, —  for  the  immediate  future 
at  least, —  of  England's  dominion.  Despite  these  notable  vic- 
tories, Great  Britain  voluntarily  abandoned  the  sovereignty  of 
the  seas,  at  a  time  when  it  might  have  been  exacted  more  in- 
flexibly than  ever  before. 

In  the  revision  of  the  "  Admiralty  Instructions,"  undertaken 
the  year  following  Trafalgar  (1806),  for  the  first  time  the  Regu- 
lation of  1691  was  omitted,  because  of  the  recommendation  of 
Admiral  Gambler  under  whom  the  revised  "  Instructions  "  were 
being  prepared.  This  renunciation  of  a  long-cherished  do- 
minion was  the  final  recognition  among  the  maritime  states  of 
Europe  that  the  open  sea,  constituting  the  great  highway  of 
commerce  and  communication  between  civilized  nations  and  the 
remotest  regions  of  the  earth,  should  remain  unrestricted  during 
the  continuance  of  peace  for  the  complete  enjoyment  of  every 
nation. 

Having  tardily  recogTiized  the  principle  of  the  freedom  of 
the  seas.  Great  Britain's  maritime  policy  became  exemplary 
because  of  its  apparent  liberality.  J^ational  interest  assured 
the  acceptance  and  more  extensive  application  of  the  principle, 
for,  with  the  continued  development  of  the  British  maritime 
interests,  it  was  indispensable  that  English  vessels  should  sail 


THE    FBEEDOM    OF    THE    SEAS  l^T 


all  seas  and  affluent  waters  without  suffering  burdensome  re- 
strictions. . 

In  the  subsequent  endeavor  to  secure  greater  opportunities 
for  maritime  enterprise,  Great  Britain  sought  the  freedom  of 
navigation  on  arterial  rivers  -  navigable  through  several  states 
—  achieving  notable  success  in  the  internationalization  ot  the 
Paraguay,  the  Danube,  the  Amazon,  tlie  Eio  de  la  Plata,  and 
the  other  extensive  inland  waterways  throughout  the  world. 

Great  Britain  demonstrated  a  genuine  and  thorough  conver- 
sion to  the  principle  of  maritime  freedom  by  limiting  the  exer- 
cise of  national  dominion  over  coastal  waters  to  a  maximum  ex- 
tent of  three  miles,  at  the  same  time  combating  excessive 
claims  to  territorial  waters  advanced  by  other  maritime  nations, 
particularly  Russia  and  the  United  States. 

The  Kavigation  Laws  of  1651,  providing  that  all  commerce 
between  England  and  her  colonies  must  be  borne  in  English 
ships;  as  well  as  all  commerce  with  any  other  country   except 
as  borne  in  the  vessels  of  the  country  of  orginal  production; 
had  received  a  subsequent  interpretation  which  served  to  re- 
strict navigation  in  the  open  sea,  inasmuch  as  foreign  vessels 
were  forbidden  to  trade  within  the  seas  adjacent  to  the  protected 
colonies.     John  Stuart  Mill,  appreciating  the  opportunity  for 
an  enormous  extension  of  British  commercial  interests,  pro- 
vided a  liberal  policy  were  adhered  to,  consistently    demon- 
strated that  though  the  Navigation  Laws  might  be  defended 
upon  grounds  of  political  expediency,  the  restrictions  were  in- 
disputably disadvantageous,  economically,  for  competition  be- 
tween vessels  of  different  nationalities  was  impossible,  and  con- 
sequently the  British  must  endure  high  freight  rates.     Though 
the  modification  of  the  Navigation  Laws  (1823)  arose  through 
the  necessities  of  domestic  welfare;  the  last  and  most  intense 
contest  between  Protection  and  Eree  Trade  being  waged  over 
the  proposed  repeal  of  the  Laws;  the  international  aspect  was 

also  significant.  ,    ,     ^  t  ,.„ 

The  Modification  Act  (1823)  empowered  the  Government  to 

negotiate  reciprocity  treaties  with  foreign  countries,  admitting 


108  INTEE.NATIONAL    WATERWAYS 

their  ships  to  British  ports  on  the  same  conditions  as  British 
ships,  provided  British  ships  enjoyed  reciprocal  privileges  in 
the  favored  countries.  The  l^avigation  Laws  were  definitely 
abolished  in  1849,  permitting  the  vessels  of  every  nation  to  com- 
pete with  English  ships  on  terms  of  perfect  equality,  whether 
in  the  ports  of  the  United  Kingdom  or  of  the  British  colonies. 

Necessity  of  Enduring  Sea-Power. —  The  voluntary  relin- 
quishment of  the  sovereignty  of  the  seas  did  not  comprehend 
any  relaxation  of  British  sea-power ;  an  essential  element  to  the 
national  existence  of  Great  Britain,  as  of  all  insular  states. 
Sea-power  is  not  equivalent  to  dominion  on  the  sea.  It  is  em- 
ployed chiefly  in  the  exercise  of  certain  belligerent  rights,  limit- 
ing the  freedom  of  the  seas  in  conformity  with  established 
belligerent  rights  solely  for  the  duration  of  the  hostilities.  Sea- 
power,  in  peace,  does  not  comprehend  the  command  of  the  seas ; 
nor  the  enjoyment  of  dominion  beyond  the  national  territorial 
limits,  seaward ;  nor  the  right  to  visit  and  search  foreign  vessels 
on  the  high  seas;  but  signifies  prestige  on  the  sea,  embracing 
the  power  of  the  navy,  and  all  other  elements  of  naval  strength ; 
particularly  the  national  mercantile  marine.  The  exercise  of 
sea-power  by  any  maritime  state  may  be  legitimate  at  any  time ; 
whereas  the  exaction  of  tribute,  whether  honorary  or  in  the  form 
of  monetary  payment,  based  upon  the  claim  to  sovereignty 
in  the  seas,  is  indefensible. 

In  the  opinion  of  Chief  Justice  Cockburn : 

"  The  claim  to  such  sovereignty  (in  the  seas),  at  all  times 
unfounded,  has  long  since  been  abandoned.  ISTo  one  would  now 
dream  of  asserting  that  the  sovereign  of  these  realms  (The 
United  Kingdom)  has  any  greater  right  over  the  surrounding 
seas  than  the  sovereigns  of  the  opposite  shores ;  or  that  it  is  the 
especial  duty  and  privilege  of  the  Queen  of  Great  Britain  to 
keep  the  peace,  in  these  seas;  or  that  the  Court  of  Admiralty 
could  try  a  foreigner  for  an  offense  committed  in  a  foreign  ves- 
sel in  all  parts  of  the  Channel.  .  .  .  All  these  vain  and  extrava- 
gant pretensions  have  long  since  given  way  to  the  influence 
of  reason  and  common  seuse,"     (Queen  vs.  Keyn,  1876,  "  Law 


THE   FREEDOM    OF   THE   SEAS  109 

Reports,"  2  Exchequer  Div.,  pg.  63.)      (Scott,  "  Cases,"  156.) 

The  employment  of  sea-power  during  peace  has  ensured  the 
safety  of  the  sea,  and  guaranteed  the  freedom  of  navigation  by 
destroying  pirates  and  semi-official  marauders,  like  those  sanc- 
tioned by  the  Barbary  states.  Despairing  of  the  establishment 
of  unrestricted  navigation  within  the  Mediterranean,  while  the 
maritime  weakness  of  the  newly-created  United  States  continued, 
Thomas  Jefferson  declared : 

"  We  must  consider  the  Mediterranean  as  absolutely  shut  to 
us  until  we  can  open  it  with  money.  Whether  this  will  be  best 
expended  in  buying  or  in  forcing  peace  is  for  Congress  to  de- 
termine;" (Jefferson,  "Writings,"  Washington  Edit.,  II,  pg. 
4),  (Mr.  Jefferson  to  Mr.  Hawkins,  Paris,  1786)  and  advised 
that 

"  Whatever  sums  we  are  obliged  to  pay  for  the  freedom  of 
navigation  in  the  European  seas,  should  be  levied  on  the  Eu- 
ropean commerce  with  us  by  a  separate  impost,  that  these  powers 
may  see  that  they  protect  these  enormities  (the  Barbary  pi- 
racies) for  their  own  loss."  (Jefferson,  "  Writings,"  Wash. 
Edit.,  Vol.  I,  509;  Mr.  Jefferson  to  General  Greene,  Paris, 
1786.) 

During  war  the  exercise  of  sea-power  within  the  limits  pre- 
scribed for  belligerent  action  by  international  law  constitutes 
no  illegitimate  restriction  upon  the  freedom  of  the  sea,  and  the 
employment  of  sea-power,  in  accordance  with  the  recognized 
rules  of  maritime  warfare,  may  be  essential  to  the  very  existence 
of  a  belligerent  state.  While  continental  nations  may  suffer 
nothing  more  serious  than  burdensome  restrictions  through  the 
lack  of  adequate  sea-power;  dominant  sea-power,  during  war, 
is  indispensable  for  an  insular  state,  ensuring  the  protection  of 
the  national  domain  and  over-seas  commerce,  and  permitting 
the  destruction  of  hostile  shipping.  Premier  Asquith,  ad- 
dressing Parliament,  February  15,  1916,  outlined  the  inesti- 
mable service  of  the  British  navy  in  the  performance  of  four 
supreme  duties :  first,  the  defense  of  the  British  shores  against 
the  possibility  of  invasion;  second,  complete  neutralization  of 


110  INTERNATIONAL   WATERWAYS 

the  aggressive  power  of  a  hostile  fleet ;  third,  [partial]  clearance 
of  the  high  seas  from  the  menace  which  early  in  the  war  was  of 
a  most  formidable  kind,  and  the  maintenance  of  a  [compara- 
tively] free  influx  of  necessary  goods  for  Great  Britain  and  her 
allies;  fourth,  vigilant  and  continuous  stoppage  of  enemy  sup- 
plies and  enemy  trade,  one  of  the  most  important  factors  in  the 
final  successful  prosecution  of  a  war.  (New  York  Times,  Feb- 
ruary 16,  1916.)! 

Serious  difiiculty  arises,  especially  in  recent  wars,  whenever 
the  accepted  principles  of  international  law  become  inadequate 
to  protect  the  maritime  interests  of  belligerents  or  neutrals. 
The  abandonment  of  customary  practices,  or  the  institution  of 
unprecedented  procedure,  may  constitute  a  serious  abridgement 
of  the  freedom  of  the  seas;  the  injury  to  the  rights  of  other 
nations  continuing  until  such  innovations  are  incorporated 
within  the  body  of  international  law  through  the  universal  ap- 
proval of  maritime  nations.  It  is  incumbent  on  all  belligerents, 
while  engaged  in  hostilities  beyond  national  territorial  waters,  to 
recognize  that  the  sea  is  the  great  highway  of  intercommunica- 
tion, for  the  common  use  and  benefit  of  all  nations,  in  war  as 
in  peace,  and  that,  in  consequence,  belligerent  limitations,  secur- 
ing validity  only  through  the  consensus  of  practice  among  mari- 
time nations,  must  accord  precedence  to  this  paramount  right 
of  international  navigation.     The  freedom  of  the  seas  signifies 

1  Mr.  Balfour  expressed  a  similar  conviction  respecting  the  essential 
service  of  the  British  navy :  "  The  Grand  Fleet,  which  as  a  Grand  Fleet 
has  never  yet  had  the  opportunity  of  being  in  action,  nevertheless  has, 
from  hour  to  hour  and  day  to  day  through  all  the  months  of  this  war 
been  the  foundation  on  which  everything  else  has  rested.  But  for  the  Grand 
Fleet  you  could  not  have  driven  the  enemy's  commerce  from  the  seas;  you 
could  not  now  be  strangling  her  economic  position ;  you  could  not  now  be 
transferring  your  troops  freely  backward  and  forward  from  Great  Britain 
to  France,  from  Canada  to  Great  Britain,  from  Australia  to  Egypt;  you 
could  not  now  be  carrying  on  military  operations  thousands  of  miles 
from  our  shores,  absolutely  secure  from  every  species  of  attack  by  any 
vessel  other  than  the  submarine.  ...  On  it  depends  the  whole  of  the 
operations  carried  out  by  the  Allies  from  Archangel  in  the  north  far 
round  to  the  Persian  Gulf,  because  were  the  British  fleet  removed  .  .  . 
the  allied  nations  .  .  .  would  have  no  means  of  intercommunication. 
They  would  be  cut  off  from  the  outer  world;  they  would  be  cut  off  from 
each  other."    New  York  Times,  March  10,  1916. 


THE   FREEDOM    OF    THE    SEAS  111 

that  no  nation  has  any  jurisdiction  upon  the  high  seas,  in  peace, 
save  over  its  nationals  and  vessels  rightfully  bearing  the  na- 
tional flag ;  while  in  the  abnormal  condition  of  war,  a  belligerent 
nation  may  enjoy,  further,  the  right  to  prevent  the  carriage  of 
contraband  and  to  establish  effective  blockades  along  the  en- 
emy's coasts.  Otherwise,  beyond  the  limits  of  territorial  waters, 
all  nations  may  enjoy  equally  the  navigation,  the  fisheries,  and 
other  advantages  of  the  sea. 

Considerations  of  national  security  sanction  sovereigTity  upon 
the  narrow  strip  of  coastal  waters,  modern  practice  restricting 
this  marginal  sea  to  an  extreme  width  of  three  miles.  The 
strict  observance  of  the  basic  principle  that  the  range  of  can- 
non; demonstrating  the  extent  of  actual,  physical  control  ex- 
ercisable by  the  state  occupying  the  adjacent  shores  and  so  de- 
termining the  width  of  territorial  waters  within  which  the  juris- 
diction of  the  state  is  undisputed ;  would  warrant  a  greatly  ex- 
tended marginal  sea.  The  comprehensive  claims  of  national  se- 
curity and  jurisdiction,  based  on  the  increased  range  of  modern 
artillery,  have  failed  to  prevail  over  the  conflicting  interests 
of  navigation,  and,  in  consequence,  the  negligible  limitation  on 
the  freedom  of  the  seas,  embodied  in  the  exclusive  control  ac- 
corded over  waters  for  a  marine  league  —  three  nautical  miles 
—  seaward,  still  enjoys  general  observance.  Since  the  bound- 
less expanse  of  the  open  sea  is  incapable  of  continuous  control 
or  occupation,  no  nation  may  claim  exclusive  rights  of  sov- 
ereignty, property,  or  jurisdiction  beyond  the  narrow  limits 
of  marginal  waters,  except  as  such  claims  afl^ect  national  prop- 
erty or  persons.  Because  of  the  inherent  inability  to  maintain 
effective  control  over  extensive  areas  of  the  sea,  states  now 
recognize  that  the  sea  is  insusceptible  of  appropriation  as  prop- 
erty. 

Westlake  considers  that  the  foundation  for  the  freedom  of 
the  seas  cannot  be  discovered  in  the  Roman  Law,  as  frequently 
asserted,  since  the  Roman  jurists  who  enunciated  this  principle 
contemplated  only  the  relation  between  individuals  and  the 
supreme   Roman   state;    no   consideration   being   accorded   to 


112  INTERJSTATIOI^^AL    WATERWAYS 

relations  between  state  and  state.  Continental  writers,  on  the 
contrary,  support  the  freedom  of  the  seas  largely  on  the  Jus- 
tinian principle.  (Westlake,  "International  Law,"  I,  164.) 
(Rivier  (contra)  "  Principes  du  droit  des  gens,"  Book  I,  pg. 
236.)  The  argument  that  the  fluidity  of  water  renders  the 
sea  incapable  of  occupation,  Westlake  considers  similarly  un- 
tenable, since  "  the  fluidity  of  the  atmosphere  would  equally 
prove  that  sovereignty  over  land  cannot  extend  usque  ad 
coelum." 

The  sea  is  incapable  of  occupation  because  ''  the  area  over 
which  a  ship  of  war  can  exercise  control  from  her  momentary 
position  is  insignificant  when  compared  with  the  vast  expanse 
of  ocean,  and  her  control  even  over  that  area  is  not  permanent. 
The  possession  established  by  her  ceases  in  fact  as  soon  as  she 
has  left  her  station,  and  the  power  of  reproducing  it  at  the  same 
station  depends  on  too  many  contingencies  to  be  that  constant 
power  to  reproduce  at  will  a  possession  which  has  ceased  in 
fact,  which  is  necessary  to  the  continuance  of  the  right." 
(Westlake,  "International  Law,"  I,  164-165.) ^ 

Voluntary  Limitation  on  Enjoyment  of  the  Seas. — 
Though  the  enjoyment  of  the  high  seas  is  a  common  right  of  all 
states,  certain  limitations  or  regulations  may  be  enforced  to  se- 
cure the  equal  rights  of  all  and  'to  ensure  order  and  safety 
throughout  the  seas.  The  laws  imposed  by  maritime  states  upon 
their  own  vessels  may  prove  inadequate  to  achieve  the  desired 

1  The  high  seas  are  the  highways  of  the  world  and  free  enjoyment  is 
the  common  right  of  all  nations.  No  state  has  exclusive  jurisdiction 
over  the  high  seas,  and  national  vessels  at  sea  are  recognized  as  of  that 
state;  Lord  vs.  Goodall,  N.  &  P.  S.  S.  Co.  102  U.  S.,  541. 

Municipal  Jurisdiction  is  co-extensive  with  the  territory  of  the  gov- 
ernment exercising  it.  Admiralty  jurisdiction  is  that  which  a  nation 
exercises  beyond  its  territorial  limits,  and  upon  the  high  seas.  This 
jurisdiction  is  exercised  because  the  seas  are  the  peculiar  property  of  no 
nation,  but  a  common  highway  for  all;  and  admiralty  jurisdiction  is 
properly  confined  to  cases  of  civil  jurisprudence.  However,  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States  has  conferred  criminal  jurisdiction  on  the  admiralty 
courts;  for  acts  committed  on  the  high  seas;  at  various  times  since  1789. 
Chief  Justice  Martin  in  People  vs.  Tyler  (1859),  7  Mich.,  161.  (Hall, 
"International  Law,"  5th  Ed.,  153.)  (Twiss,  "International  Law,"  Vol. 
I,  sec.  173.) 


THE    FREEDOM    OF    THE    SEAS  113 

condition,  or  the  situation  presented  may  demand  international 
co-operation  for  adequate  government.  The  convention  signed 
by  various  maritime  nations  following  the  Titanic  disaster  recog- 
nized the  necessity  of  such  united  action  for  securing  the  safety 
of  life  at  sea. 

ISTations  occasionally  agree  to  the  mutual  relinquishment  of 
the  fullest  enjoyment  of  their  undisputed  rights  upon  the  high 
seas  in  order  to  destroy  certain  adverse  influences  or  to  estab- 
lish, more  securely,  the  freedom  of  the  seas.  Other  nations 
may  assent  to  these  limitations  in  furtherance  of  the  common, 
maritime  welfare,  but  in  the  absence  of  such  acquiescence  their 
enjoyment  of  the  sea,  subject  to  the  existing  maritime  law,  con- 
tinues unlimited.  Notable  limitations  of  rights  on  the  high 
seas,  agreed  to  by  various  nations,  include : 

The  treaties  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain 
of  April  7,  1862,  and  February  17,  1863,  permitting  a  mutual 
search  for  slavers  within  two  hundred  miles  of  the  African 
coast,  south  of  the  thirty-second  parallel  of  North  Latitude, 
and  within  ninety  nautical  miles  of  Cuba,  Madagascar,  Puerto 
Eico,  and  Santo  Domingo;  this  treaty  being  a  temporary  de- 
parture by  the  United  States  from  the  constantly  asserted  posi- 
tion that  American  vessels,  during  peace,  should  be  subjected  to 
visit  and  search  solely  by  the  war-vessels  of  the  United  States ; 

The  General  Congress  of  Brussels,  July  2,  1890,  providing 
for  a  reciprocal  search  for  slaves  along  the  East  African 
coast ; 

The  treaty  of  1887  between  Belgium,  Denmark,  France,  Ger- 
many, Great  Britain,  and  the  Netherlands  governing  the  liquor 
traffic  on  the  North  Sea. 

Though  the  ocean  is  the  property  of  no  single  nation,  the 
vessels  of  every  nation  must  observe  the  general  maritime  law 
which  all  commercial  nations  have  agreed  upon  by  long  usage, 
or  otherwise,  for  governing  transit  on  this  common  highway. 
("Marianna  Flora,"  11  Wheaton,  405.)  Additional  rules, 
supplementing  the  general  maritime  law  and  further  safeguard- 
ing the  navigation  of  the  high  seas,  may  be  enacted  by  any  mari- 


114  INTERNATIONAL,    WATERWAYS 

time  state,  but  sucli  supplementary  legislation  can  bind  national 
vessels  and  the  vessels  of  states  which  accept  the  additional 
regulations,  solely,  unless  the  rule  receives  universal  sanction 
through  adoption  by  all  maritime  powers. 

Equal  participation  in  the  deep-sea  fisheries  is  a  legitimate 
employment  of  the  high  seas  which  all  maritime  nations  may 
enjoy.  The  limitations  and  regulations  imposed  correspond 
with  those  established  to  secure  the  freedom  of  navigation  on  the 
seas,  since  the  yearly  production  of  the  fisheries  discloses  an 
importance  only  secondary  to  that  of  commercial  navigation, 
the  estimated  value  of  the  world's  fishery  products  amounting  to 
five  hundred  million  dollars,  annually.  ("  Report  of  the  United 
States  Bureau  of  Fisheries,"  1915.)  The  protection  afforded 
the  fisheries  by  national  regulation  within  territorial  waters 
is  inadequate;  consequently,  while  fishing  within  territorial 
waters  is  reserved  exclusively  for  national  vessels,  all  foreigners 
being  rigorously  excluded  unless  enjoying  limited  treaty  priv- 
ileges, the  undisputed  right  of  fishing  on  the  high  seas,  enjoyed 
by  all  nations,  may  be  restrained  or  regulated  by  custom  or 
treaty.^ 

Modern  practice  exhibits  a  fundamental  departure  from  the 
former  pretensions  of  sovereignty  maintained  by  dominant 
maritime  powers.  The  navigation  and  fishery  regulations 
which  limit  the  use  of  the  sea  to  any  appreciable  degree  con- 
stitute no  derogation  from  the  fundamental  principles  of  in- 
ternational law  establishing  the  freedom  of  the  sea.  Although 
such  co-operative  restrictions  seek  the  secure  and  perpetual 
enjoyment  of  the  sea  for  all  maritime  nations,  foreign  nations 

1  Like  many  other  maritime  states,  Great  Britain  has  agreed  to  limit 
her  undisputed  right  to  fish  in  the  open  sea  by  the  following  conventions: 

By  treaty  with  the  United  States,  for  the  protection  of  the  Northeast 
fisheries;  notably  the  treaties  of  1818,  1872,  1892; 

By  the  treaty  of  1839,  supplemented  by  the  treaty  of  1867,  with  France, 
regulating  fishing  in  the  adjacent  seas; 

By  the  treaty  of  1904  with  France,  relating  to  the  Newfoundland  fish- 
eries; 

By  the  treaty  of  1882  between  Great  Britain,  Belgium,  Denmark,  France, 
Germany,  and  the  Netherlands  governing  the  North  Sea  fisheries. 


THE    FEEEDOM    OF    THE    SEAS  115 

are  bound  to  observe  the  limitations  enacted,  only  upon  volun- 
tary adoption. 

Certain  indefensible  limitations  still  endure  in  time  of  peace, 
and  the  magnitude  of  modern  wars  exerts  serious  restrictions 
upon  commerce,  frequently  intensified  by  the  employment  of 
irregular  and  unprecedented  practices,  nevertheless  there  exists 
nothing  comparable  to  the  former,  continued  pretensions  to  the 
sovereignty  of  the  seas,  involving  humiliating  ceremonies  and 
the  payment  of  tribute.  At  discretion,  a  merchant  vessel  may, 
or  may  not,  offer  the  flag  salute  upon  passing  war-ships  of  any 
sovereign.  The  ceremony  which  indicated  submission  to  the 
maritime  dominion  of  powerful  states  in  previous  centuries, 
has  become  merely  a  courtesy  to  be  returned  by  the  fleet-com- 
mander. 

Aside  from  the  question  whether  sovereignty  comprehended 
property  in  the  seas,  it  is  beyond  dispute  that  the  exercise  of 
sovereignty  on  the  seas  resulted  in  restrictions  which  are  no 
longer  countenanced.  While  certain  exceptional  limitations 
upon  the  most  complete  liberty  of  navigation  still  endure,  the 
former  comprehensive  pretensions  to  dominion  over  wide  areas 
of  the  open  sea  are  no  longer  maintained.  Suppressed  for 
three  centuries  by  the  intense  national  rivalries  engendered 
by  the  unprecedented  opportunities  for  maritime  development 
disclosed  by  the  discovery  of  the  I^ew  World,  but  gaining  in- 
creasing recognition  as  the  maritime  states  of  Europe  realized 
the  futility  of  endeavoring  to  maintain  a  lasting  and  exclusive 
dominion  over  the  high  seas,  the  principle  of  the  freedom  of 
the  seas  ultimately  received  universal  acceptance  through  the 
voluntary  abandonment  by  Great  Britain  of  all  claims  to  sov- 
ereignty beyond  territorial  waters. 


CHAPTER  VII 

EXCEPTIOISrAL  LIMITATIONS  OIST  THE  FREEDOM   OF  THE   SEAS 

Before  proceeding  with  the  consideration  of  the  freedom  of 
navigation  on  inland  waters,  which  almost  immediately  evolved 
from  the  establishment  of  the  unrestricted  use  of  the  seas,  cer- 
tain exceptional  limitations  must  be  briefly  noted.  The  free- 
dom of  the  seas,  like  the  freedom  of  navigation  on  inland,  in- 
ternational waterways,  enjoys  a  world-wide  observance,  albeit 
certain  notable  restrictions  still  exist.  In  relation  to  the  vast 
extent  of  international  waterways,  both  inland  and  maritime, 
available  for  the  commerce  and  enterprise  of  all  nations,  the 
limitations  imposed  during  peace  are  not  particularly  burden- 
some, though  significant  as  demonstrating  that  the  unqualified 
observance  of  the  principle  has  not  yet  been  achieved,  neither 
on  the  high  seas  nor  on  inland  waterways. 

Although  pretensions  to  sovereignty  over  extensive  areas  of 
the  high  seas  are  now  virtually  obsolete,  certain  claims  to  re- 
stricted maritime  areas  still  persist,  based  upon  the  extension 
of  the  marginal  sea  beyond  the  customary  limits,  and  so  en- 
closing bays,  gulfs,  and  even  narrow  seas,  which  justly  belong 
to  all  nations  in  common.  Long  exclusive  possession  or  ex- 
plicit treaty  provisions  with  other  maritime  nations  may  ac- 
cord a  limited  or  even  a  complete  recognition  of  such  adverse 
claims.  As  a  rule  the  presumption  is  against  the  validity  of  all 
claims  exceeding  the  customary  limits  of  territorial  jurisdic- 
ton,  for,  as  Vattel  demonstrates,  "  the  rights  of  navigation  and 
fishing  and  other  rights  which  are  exercised  on  the  sea  are 
classed  among  those  rights  which  may  be  exercised  at  will,  and 
which  are  not  subject  to  prescription,  they  cannot  be  lost  by  a 
non-user.  Hence,  although  it  should  happen  that  a  nation  had 
been,  from  time  immemorial,  the  only  one  to  exercise  the  right 

116 


LIMITATIONS    ON    FEEEDOM    OF    THE    SEAS  llY 

of  navigating  or  fishing  in  certain  seas,  it  could  not  on  that 
ground  claim  an  exclusive  right;  for  the  fact  that  the  other 
nations  did  not  use  their  common  right  of  navigating  and  fish- 
ing in  the  waters  in  question  does  not  lead  to  the  conclusion 
that  they  agreed  to  renounce  their  right,  and  they  may  still  use 
it  as  often  as  they  please."  But  it  can  happen  that  "  non-user  " 
may  take  on  the  character  of  consent,  or  implied  agreement, 
and  thus  become  a  title  in  favor  of  one  nation  as  against  an- 
other. When  a  nation  is  alone  in  exercising  the  right  of  nav- 
igating and  fishing  in  certain  waters,  and  claims  an  exclusive 
right,  and  forbids  others  to  exercise  their  right,  if  they  obey 
the  prohibition  with  sufficient  signs  of  acquiescence,  they  im- 
pliedly renounce  their  right  in  favor  of  the  other  nation  and 
give  it  an  exclusive  right  which  it  may  lawfully  maintain 
against  them  in  the  future,  especially  when  that  right  is  con- 
firmed by  long  usage."  (Vattel,  "  Law  of  Nations,"  Vol.  I, 
Book  I,  Chap,  xxiii,  sees.  285-286.) 

International  law  admits  the  exercise  of  national  jurisdiction 
upon  inland  waters  bounded  entirely  by  the  territory  of  a  sin- 
gle state  and  affording  access  solely  to  ports  within  the  national 
domain,  as  well  as  over  the  marginal  sea,  customarily  limited 
to  one  marine  league  seaward.  Bays,  not  exceeding  six  nau- 
tical miles  in  width,  are  considered  territorial  waters,  though 
immemorial  usage  may  permit  jurisdiction  on  waters  exceed- 
ing these  universally  recognized  limits,  particularly  if  national 
security  is  jeopardized  otherwise.  In  the  opinion  of  Vattel,  all 
considerations  respecting  the  marginal  seas  apply  "more  es- 
pecially and  with  greater  reason  to  roads  (anchorages),  bays, 
and  straits,  inasmuch  as  they  are  even  more  capable  of  being 
effectively  possessed  and  are  of  greater  importance  to  the 
safety  of  the  state ;  i.e.  .  .  .  bays  and  straits  of  small  area,  and 
not  wide  stretches  of  sea  sometimes  called  by  these  names,  such 
as  Hudson's  Bay,  and  the  Straits  of  Magellan,  over  which  sov- 
ereignty, and  still  less  ownership,  could  be  claimed.  A  bay, 
entrance  into  which  can  be  prevented,  may  be  possessed  and 
made  subject  to  the  laws  of  the  sovereign;  and  it  is  important 


118  INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS 

that  this  be  so,  since  the  nation  might  be  much  more  easily  in- 
sulted in  such  waters  than  along  the  coast,  which  is  exposed  to 
the  winds  and  force  of  the  waves."  (Vattel,  "  Law  of  iJTa- 
tions,"  Vol.  I,  Book  I,  Chap,  xxiii,  sec.  291.)  ^ 

All  other  waters  constitute  the  high  seas  and  cannot  be  re- 
stricted by  any  sovereign,  though  Phillimore  adheres  to  the 
view  that  "  the  portion  of  the  sea  actually  occupied  by  a  fleet 
riding  at  anchor  is  within  the  dominion  of  the  nation  to  which 
the  fleet  belongs,  so  long  as  it  remains  there,"  a  doctrine  revived 
during  the  progress  of  the  Spanish  Claims  hearings,  December 
19,  1901,  the  Assistant  Attorney  General  declaring  that  "  an 
United  States  battleship  represents  the  sovereignty  of  its  coun- 
try. .  .  .  The  vessel  and  the  water  upon  which  it  floats  is 
United  States  territory."  (Phillimore,  "  International  Law," 
I,  sec.  203;  II,  sec.  303.)  (Spanish  Treaty  Claims  Commis- 
sion, #  30,  Dec.  19,  1901.)2 

Futile  efforts  during  the  nineteenth  century  to  establish  ex- 
clusive claims  upon  the  high  seas  served  further  to  vindicate 
the  principle  universally  recognized  during  the  first  decade, 
so  that  at  present  the  derogations  from  the  complete  freedom 
of  the  seas  involve  the  extension  of  marginal  waters  beyond  the 
customary  limits.  The  exactions  of  the  Barbary  pirates;  the 
arrogant  claims  of  Great  Britain  to  the  right  of  visit  and  search 
aboard  foreign  merchant-men  during  peace;  the  dues  imposed 
upon  navigation  within  the  Danish  Sound;  and  the  successive 
endeavors  of  Eussia  and  the  United  States  to  restrict  the  seal- 
fishing  industry  in  the  Bering  Sea,  ceased  to  exist,   demon- 

1  F.  de  Martens,  "  Traite  de  droit  international,"  Vol.  I,  sec.  96,  pg. 
495;  supported  by  Oppenheim,  "International  Law,"  I,  pg.  230;  asserts 
that  the  extensive  Sea  of  Azov  is  not  open  to  the  navigation  of  foreign  ves- 
sels, in  the  absence  of  permission  from  the  Russian  Government,  since 
communication  with  the  Black  and  Mediterranean  Seas  is  indirect;  it  is 
virtually  enclosed  by  Russian  territory;  and  therefore  resembles  a  gulf 
more  than  an  open  sea. 

2  The  ocean  is  "  the  open  sea,  the  high  sea,  that  which  is  the  common 
highway  of  nations,  the  common  domain,  within  the  body  of  no  country  and 
under  the  particular  right  or  jurisdiction  of  no  sovereign,  but  open,  free 
and  common  to  all  alike,  as  3.  common  S-nd  ecjual  right.  U.  S,  vs.  Morel, 
26  Fed.  Cases,  No.  15,  807, 


LIMITATIONS    ON    FEEEDOM    OF    THE    SEAS  119 

strating  that  a  recrudescence  of  the  conditions  formerly  counten- 
anced, and  even  energetically  maintained,  had  become  intol- 
erable to  the  maritime  world. 

Impositions  of  the  Barbary  States. —  The  vindication,  ad- 
vanced by  the  Barbary  pirates,  for  the  imposition  of  tribute 
money,  recalled  the  exclusive  claims  of  an  earlier  age,  main- 
tained by  Venice,  Genoa,  Spain,  Portugal,  and  England.  The 
Barbary  States  insisted  that  their  corsairs  were  not  piratical, 
but  were  armed  forces  of  the  States,  despatched  officially  to  col- 
lect tribute  from  all  vessels  navigating  the  western  Mediterra- 
nean, and  acting  in  accordance  with  the  long-established  privi- 
leges arising  from  sovereignty  on  the  seas.  Though  the  ac- 
tivities of  the  Barbary  States  were  confined  exclusively  to  the 
Mediterranean,  a  fact  which  afforded  a  support  to  the  claim 
of  appropriated  waters,  the  exactions  of  tribute  and  the  en- 
slavement of  the  captured  voyagers  constituted  so  serious  a  re- 
striction upon  the  freedom  of  navigation  that  war  was  declared 
by  the  United  States  against  Algiers,  the  most  notorious  of- 
fender, March  3,  1815.  The  decisive  victories  achieved  by  the 
American  fleet  under  the  command  of  Bainbridge  and  Decatur 
assured  the  immediate  discontinuance  by  Algiers,  Tripoli,  and 
Tunis  of  the  intolerable  exactions ;  the  Dey  of  Algiers  agreeing 
by  the  treaty  of  June  30,  1815,  that  henceforth  no  tribute 
should  be  exacted  from  vessels  of  American  registry.  (Moore, 
"American  Diplomacy,"  pg.  71.) 

Exercise  of  Visit  and  Search  During  Peace. —  Incon- 
sistent with  Great  Britain's  apparent  abandonment  of  sover- 
eignty on  the  sea  (1806)  was  the  continuance  of  a  practice  par- 
ticularly abhorrent  to  the  United  States :  the  visit  and  search  of 
merchant  vessels  during  peace  by  British  war-ships.  The  cus- 
tomary practice  of  removing  seamen,  who  were  alleged  British 
subjects,  and  forcibly  enlisting  them  in  the  service  of  his 
Majesty,  intensified  the  resistance  to  this  practice  which  cul- 
minated in  the  War  of  1812.  Although  the  Treaty  of  Ghent 
(December  24,  1814),  which  terminated  this  war,  provided  no 
prohibition  of  this  objectionable  practice,  this  method  of  abridg- 


120  INTEENATIOISrAL    WATERWAYS 

ing  the  freedom  of  navigation  was  discontinued.  The  opinion 
of  Lord  Stowell  that  "  no  nation  can  exercise  a  right  of  visita- 
tion and  search  upon  the  common  and  unappropriated  parts  of 
the  sea,  save  only  on  the  belligerent  claim "  expressed  the 
principle,  thenceforth  observed.  (Le  Louis,  2  Dodson,  210, 
245.)      (Moore,  "  International  Law  Digest,"  II,  886.) 

Slave  Trade  Search. —  Subsequent  endeavors  to  establish  a 
qualified  right  of  visit  and  search,  based  on  international  agree- 
ment, for  the  purpose  of  suppressing  the  African  slave  trade 
proved  signally  unsatisfactory.  Maritime  states  guarded  the 
principle  of  the  inviolability  of  merchant  ships  while  on  the 
high  seas,  during  peace,  so  jealously  that  the  efforts  to  restrict 
the  slave  trade  in  this  manner  were  unavailing. 

The  tenth  article  of  the  Treaty  of  Ghent  between  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain  recited  that  the  traffic  in  slaves  was 
irreconcilable  with  the  principles  of  humanity  and  justice,  and 
that,  in  consequence.  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  would 
undertake  to  promote  its  abolition.  Keferring  to  this  article, 
Secretary  of  State  Adams  instructed  the  ministers  of  the  United 
States  in  London  (1818),  to  state  to  the  British  Government: 
"  that  the  admission  of  a  right  in  the  officers  of  foreign  ships 
of  war  to  enter  and  search  the  vessels  of  the  United  States,  in 
time  of  peace,  under  any  circumstances  whatever,  would  meet 
with  universal  repugnance  in  the  public  opinion  of  this  coun- 
try." ("American  State  Papers,  Foreign  Relations,"  V,  72.) 
(Moore,  "  International  Law  Digest,"  II,  918.) 

Danish  Sound  Restrictions. —  The  immemorial  claim  of 
Denmark  to  the  right  of  levying  tolls  on  all  vessels  passing 
through  the  Sound,  the  Store  Belt,  and  the  Little  Belt,  still 
enjoyed  recognition  during  the  early  part  of  the  nineteenth 
century.  Although  this  compulsion  to  pay  tribute  to  the  Dan- 
ish king  constituted  a  limitation  on  the  freedom  of  navigation, 
Denmark  asserted  the  legality  of  this  imposition,  claiming 
that  the  expense  of  lighting  and  marking  the  navigable  chan- 
nels was  thus  defrayed,  and  that  the  right  was  undeniably  rec- 
ognized by  numerous   treaties   and   immemorial  usage.     The 


LIMITATIONS    ON    FREEDOM    OP    THE    SEAS  121 

continued  exaction  of  the  Sound  dues  terminated  in  a  series 
of  treaties  between  Denmark  and  the  principal  commercial 
nations,  providing  for  the  amortization  of  the  tolls;  each  na- 
tion contributing  a  specified  sum  as  compensation;  the  treaty 
of  April  11,  1857,  between  Denmark  and  the  United  States 
providing  for  the  payment  of  $393,911.  (Wheaton ;  Lawrence 
edit.;  1863;  pg.  335.)  (Moore,  "International  Law  Digest," 
I,  663.) 

Bering  Sea  Claims. —  A  more  comprehensive  claim,  pur- 
porting to  restrict  navigation  on  the  open  sea,  was  advanced 
by  Kussia  under  the  ukase  of  Emperor  Alexander,  September 
7,  1821.  In  sanctioning  certain  regulations  of  the  Kussian- 
American  Company,  which  had  received  various  hunting  and 
trading  licenses  "  in  the  northern  seas  and  along  the  coasts  of 
America,"  by  virtue  of  the  charter  granted  by  the  Imperial 
edict  of  Paul  I,  July  8,  1799 ;  the  Emperor  Alexander  pro- 
claimed that  "  the  pursuits  of  commerce,  w^haling,  and  fishing, 
and  of  all  other  industry,  on  all  islands,  ports,  and  gulfs,  includ- 
ing the  whole  of  the  northwest  coast  of  America,  beginning  from 
Bering's  Strait  to  the  51°  of  northern  latitude,  also  from  the 
Aleutian  Islands  to  the  eastern  coast  of  Siberia,  as  well  as 
along  the  Kurile  Islands,  from  Bering's  Strait  to  the  south 
cape  of  the  island  of  Urup  .  .  .  were  exclusively  granted  to 
Russian  subjects,"  and  all  foreign  vessels  were  forbidden,  ex- 
cept in  case  of  distress,  "  not  only  to  land  on  the  coasts  and 
islands  belonging  to  Eussia,  as  stated  above,  but  also  to  ap- 
proach them  within  less  than  a  hundred  Italian  miles." 
(Moore,  "International  Law  Digest,"  I,  890.) 

Following  the  immediate  protest  of  the  American  Govern- 
ment, the  Russian  minister  sought  to  vindicate  the  proclama- 
tion as  a  measure  designed  to  protect  the  Russian  settlements 
in  America  from  disturbance  and  competition,  and  particularly 
to  prevent  all  illicit  trade  in  arms  and  ammunition  with  the 
natives.  In  conclusion,  he  indicated  that  the  Russian  Govern- 
ment might  justifiably  claim  sovereignty  over  the  whole  of 
Bering's  Sea  and  the  Pacific  Ocean  between  the  Imperial  Asi- 


122  INTERNATIONAL    WATERWAYS 

atic  and  American  territories,  as  a  closed  sea.  (Moore,  "  Di- 
gest," I,  891.)      (Westlake,  I,  166.)      (Hall,  5tli  Edit.,  148.) 

Great  Britain,  until  1806  an  ardent  defender  of  sovereignty 
in  the  open  sea,  joined  with  the  United  States  in  challenging 
the  legality  of  the  Russian  pretensions.  During  the  progress 
of  the  negotiations  undertaken  at  Petrograd  the  Russian  Gov- 
ernment admitted  that  jurisdiction  upon  the  Pacific  and  Ber- 
ing Sea  should  be  restricted  to  the  range  of  artillery  from  the 
sea-coast.  The  attemj)ted  prohibition  was  formally  abandoned 
by  treaty  with  the  United  States  (1824)  and  Great  Britain 
(1825),  stipulating  that  the  citizens  of  the  high  contracting 
parties  should  be  neither  disturbed  nor  restrained  either  in 
navigation  or  fishing  on  any  part  of  the  Pacific  Ocean.  (De 
Martens,  "  Nouv.  Recueil,"  Vol.  II,  358;  Vol.  VI.  684.) 
(Moore,  "Digest,"  I,  892.) 

From  that  time  until  the  cession  of  Alaska  to  the  United 
States,  Russia  neither  asserted  nor  exercised  any  exclusive 
jurisdiction  within  Bering's  Sea  or  on  the  Pacific,  or  sought 
any  exclusive  rights  in  fisheries  beyond  the  ordinary  limit  of 
territorial  waters,  other  than  the  transitory  claim  to  the  sole 
enjoyment  of  the  Sea  of  Ochotsk  fisheries.  Referring  to  the 
reported  exclusion  from  the  Sea  of  Ochotsk  of  the  British 
whaling  barque  Faraivay,  Mr.  J'ish  instructed  the  United 
States  minister  to  Russia  (December  1,  1875,)  that  "  there 
was  reason  to  hope  that  the  practice  which  formerly  prevailed 
with  powerful  nations  of  regarding  seas  and  bays  usually  of 
large  extent  near  their  coasts  as  closed  to  any  foreigii  com- 
merce or  fishery  not  specially  licensed  by  them  was  without 
exception  a  pretension  of  the  past,  and  that  no  nation  could 
claim  exemption  from  the  general  rule  of  public  law,  which 
limits  its  maritime  jurisdiction  to  a  marine  league  from  its 
coasts.  We  should  particularly  regret  if  Russia  should  insist 
on  any  such  pretension."  (Moore,  "  Digest,"  I,  717.) 
(Hall,  5th  Edit.,  148.)  (La  Ninfa,  75  "  Federal  Reporter," 
517.) 

The  cession  of  Alaska  to  the  United  States  was  consummated 


LIMITATIONS    ON    FREEDOM    OF   THE    SEAS  123 

by  the  Treaty  of  Washington  (March  30,  1867),  the  Emperor 
of  Eussia  undertaking,  upon  the  payment  of  $7,200,000,  to 
cede  all  Imperial  territory  and  dominion  on  the  Continent  of 
America,  the  western  boundary  being  so  drawn  as  to  include 
numerous  islands  lying  off  the  Alaskan  coast.  It  is  note- 
worthy, in  view  of  the  subsequent  claim  of  the  United  States, 
that  the  treaty  contained  no  stipulations  transferring  property 
rights  in  Bering  Sea;  the  terms  expressly  conveying  the  terri- 
tory and  dominion  of  Russia  on  the  Continent  of  America  and 
in  the  adjacent  islands.  Despite  the  explicit  provisions  of 
the  treaty  of  1867,  the  United  States,  endeavoring  to  vindicate 
the  seizure  by  government  revenue  cutters  of  certain  Canadian 
vessels  nearly  sixty  miles  from  the  Alaskan  coast  (1886,  1887, 
1889),  advanced  claim  to  jurisdiction  within  Bering's  Sea,  as 
successor  to  the  alleged  Russian  dominion  over  these  waters. 

After  quoting  the  language  of  the  first  article  of  the  treaty 
of  cession  (March  30,  1867),  while  charging  the  jury  in  the 
Thornton  case  (Aug.  30,  1886),  Judge  Dawson  declared 
that  "  Russia  had  claimed  and  exercised  jurisdiction  over  all 
that  portion  of  Bering  Sea  embraced  within  the  boundary 
lines  set  forth  in  the  treaty  " ;  that  "  all  claim  had  been  recog- 
nized tacitly  and  acquiesced  in  by  the  other  maritime  powers 
of  the  world  for  a  long  series  of  years  prior  to  the  treaty  " ;  and 
that  the  dominion  of  Russia  having  passed  to  the  United  States, 
"  all  the  waters  within  the  boundary  set  forth  in  this  treaty  to 
the  western  end  of  the  Aleutian  Archipelago  and  the  chain 
of  islands  are  to  be  considered  as  comprised  within  the  waters 
of  Alaska,  and  all  penalties  prescribed  by  law  against  the  kill- 
ing of  fur-bearing  animals  must  therefore  attach  against  any 
violation  of  law  within  the  limits  described."  (Moore,  "Di- 
gest," I,  896.) 

Although  the  vessels  condemned  by  the  United  States  Court 
at  Sitka  were  released  by  Presidential  order  (1886),  additional 
seizures  and  condemnations  occurred  in  1887,  pending  the  con- 
clusion of  the  negotiations  undertaken  by  the  United  States 
with  the  governments  of  France,  Great  Britain,  Japan,  and 


124  INTERNATIONAL    WATERWAYS 

Eussia  to  prohibit  the  indiscriminate  killing  of  fur-seals  through 
co-operative  regulation.  Certain  objections,  lodged  by  Can- 
ada, terminated  the  conference ;  and  the  United  States  Congress 
forthwith  enacted  the  law  of  March  2,  1889,  reciting  that  sec- 
tion 1956  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  forbidding  the  killing  of 
fur-bearing  animals  in  Alaskan  waters  should  thenceforth  ap- 
ply "  to  all  the  dominion  of  the  United  States  in  the  waters  of 
Bering  Sea."  Following  the  establishment  of  this  law,  the 
seizure  of  vessels  in  the  N^orth  Pacific  beyond  the  territorial 
waters  of  the  United  States  was  renewed,  energetically  (1889). 
In  the  endeavor  to  vindicate  the  exercise  of  jurisdiction  in  an 
area  of  the  open  sea  fifteen  hundred  by  six  hundred  miles  in 
extent,  the  United  States  claimed  that  Bering  Sea  was  not  com- 
prehended in  the  term  "  Pacific  Ocean,"  employed  in  the 
Russian  treaties  of  1824  and  1825,  and  contended  that  both  be- 
fore the  acquisition  of  Alaska  from  Russia,  and  subsequently 
when  Alaska  was  in  the  possession  of  the  United  States,  the 
waters  of  Bering's  Sea  were,  and  had  been,  treated  as  terri- 
torial waters,  and  that  therefore  seals  and  all  other  animals 
and  fish  found  in  the  prescribed  area  were  the  property  of  the 
United  States.  (Alverstone,  "  Recollections  of  Bench  and 
Bar,"  pg.  223.)! 

Great  Britain  refused  to  accept  the  American  interpreta- 
tion, asserting  that  the  waters  of  Bering  Sea,  other  than  the 
usual  territorial  waters,  must  be  considered  as  high  seas  and 
that,  therefore,  anyone  had  a  right  to  capture  animals  or  fish 
therein;  and  proposed  an  arbitration  of  the  divergent  opinions 
concerning  the  jurisdictional  rights  of  the  United  States.  The 
Court  of  Arbitration,  established  by  the  Treaty  of  Washington 
between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain;  February  29, 
1892 ;  determined  that  Russia  had  neither  exercised  nor  con- 
veyed an  exclusive  jurisdiction  over  Bering  Sea,  outside  the 

1  According  to  Hall,  the  United  States  held  the  position  that  a  state 
has  the  right  to  make  enactments  under  which  it  can  assume  jurisdiction 
on  the  high  seas,  exercisable  at  an  indefinite  distance  outside  territorial 
waters,  for  the  purpose  of  safe-guarding  property,  and  of  protecting  itself 
against  a  threatening  invasioix  of  its  interests.    Hall,  5th  Edit.,  pg.  257. 


LIMITATIONS    ON    FREEDOM    OF    THE    SEAS  125 

usual  territorial  waters,  and  that,  in  consequence,  the  United 
States  had  no  further  rights  within  these  waters  than  those  en- 
joyed by  Russia  until  the  cession  of  Alaska.  This  decision  re- 
affirmed the  established  principle  that  the  laws  of  a  state  can- 
not operate  beyond  the  marginal  sea  against  the  vessels  or  sub- 
jects of  another  state,  except  with  the  state's  express  or  tacit 
assent;  such  operation  constituting  a  restriction  upon  the  free- 
dom of  the  seas. 

Following  the  award  of  the  Bering  Sea  Tribunal,  the  United 
States  Courts  refused  to  entertain  jurisdiction  over  foreign 
vessels  seized  beyond  the  three-mile  limit,  although  continuing 
to  enforce  the  statutes,  passed  by  Congress  for  the  protection  of 
fur-bearing  animals  within  sixty  geographical  miles  of  the 
Alaskan  coast,  against  citizens  of  the  United  States.  ("  James 
G.  Swan,"  77  Federal,  473.) ^ 

Acting  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  Treaty  of 
Arbitration,  the  Tribunal  prescribed  regulations  to  prevent  the 
extermination  of  the  fur-seals,  having  competence,  by  virtue  of 
the  treaty  to  limit  the  freedom  of  the  seas  to  this  extent,  though 
solely  with  reference  to  the  acts  of  the  two  contracting  parties. 
This  prohibition  forbade  pelagic  seal-fishing  within  sixty 
miles  of  the  Pribyloff  Islands  during  a  specified  closed  season ; 
May-August.  These  regulations,  which  the  appropriate,  sub- 
sequent legislation  of  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States 
made  binding  upon  their  respective  nationals,  proved  inade- 

1  The  award  of  the  arbitrators  under  the  Convention  signed  by  Great 
Britain  and  the  United  States;  February  29,  1892;  with  regard  to  fur- 
bearing  seals  in  Bering  Sea,  by  which  the  contracting  parties  agreed  that 
the  decision  of  the  tribunal  of  arbitration  should  be  a  final  settlement  of 
all  questions  submitted,  became  the  supreme  law  of  the  land  and  as 
binding  on  the  courts  as  an  act  of  Congress.  By  the  award  it  was  settled 
that  the  United  States  had  no  exclusive  jurisdiction  in  the  waters  of  the 
Bering  Sea,  outside  the  ordinary  three-mile  limit,  and  no  right  of  prop- 
erty in  or  protection  over  the  fur-bearing  seals  frequenting  the  islands  of 
the  United  States  when  found  outside  of  such  three-mile  limit.  Therefore, 
the  act  of  March  2,  1889,  declaring  that  the  Revised  Statutes,  section  1956, 
which  forbids  the  killing  of  fur-bearing  animals  in  Alaska  and  waters 
thereof,  shall  apply  to  "  all  the  domain  of  the  United  States  in  the  waters 
of  Bering's  Sea,"  must  be  construed  to  mean  the  waters  within  three  miles 
of  the  shore  of  Alaska.     "La  Ninfa";  1896;  75  Federal,  513. 


126  INTERNATIONAL  WATEKWAYS 

quate,  as  fishing  vessels  from  other  maritime  states  continued 
an  unrestrained  destruction.  Following  extended  negotiations, 
the  protection  and  preservation  of  the  fur-seals  in  the  North 
Pacific  was  assured  through  international  co-operation,  agreed 
upon  by  the  treaty  concluded  at  Washington,  July  7,  1911; 
between  Great  Britain,  Japan,  Eussia,  and  the  United  States. 
This  convention,  effective  from  December  15,  1911,  will  re- 
main in  force  for  fifteen  years,  and  thereafter  until  twelve 
months  have  elapsed  following  notice  of  withdrawal  from  one, 
or  all,  of  the  parties. 

Prior  to  the  decision  of  the  Bering  Sea  Tribunal,  the  Rus- 
sian Government  had  seized  American  fishing  vessels  beyond 
the  Imperial  Asiatic  territorial  waters,  defending  this  ex- 
tensive exercise  of  jurisdiction  by  reference  to  the  position  as- 
sumed by  the  United  States  in  the  dispute  then  pending  with 
Great  Britain.  The  claims  for  indemnity  arising  from  these 
seizures  remained  in  abeyance  until  the  convention  of  St. 
Petersburg  (Petrograd),  August  26-September  8,  1900,  be- 
tween Russia  and  the  United  States  was  agreed  upon,  provid- 
ing for  an  arbitration  of  the  rights  involved.  The  arbitrator, 
after  observing  that  there  existed  between  the  United  States 
and  Russia  at  the  time  of  the  seizure  no  convention  regulating 
the  taking  of  fur-seals  in  such  manner  as  to  affect  the  ordinary 
rules  of  jurisdiction  under  the  law  of  nations,  declared  that, 
whether  the  seizure  took  place  twenty,  or  only  eleven,  miles 
from  land,  it  was  made  outside  Russian  territorial  waters; 
that  the  contention  that  a  ship  of  war  might  pursue  outside 
territorial  waters  a  vessel  whose  crew  had  committed  an  unlaw- 
ful act  in  the  territorial  waters  or  on  the  territory  of  the  state, 
was  not  in  conformity  with  the  law  of  nations,  since  the  juris- 
diction of  the  state  could  not  be  extended  beyond  the  territorial 
sea,  unless  by  express  convention ;  and  that  it  was  therefore  un- 
necessary to  consider  the  alleged  grounds  for  inferring  that  the 
vessel  had  been  guilty  of  the  illegal  hunting  of  seals  in  the 
territorial  waters  or  on  the  territory  of  Russia.  An  award 
was  made  in  favor  of  the  claimants,  consequently,  for  $28,588, 


LIMITATIONS    ON    FREEDOM    OF    THE    SEAS  127 

with  interest  at  six  per  cent.      (Moore,   "Digest,"   I,   929.) 

The  illegality  of  the  former  exercise  of  sovereignty  on  the 
high  seas,  disclosing  insuperable  tenacity  for  three  centuries, 
despite  the  futile  endeavors  of  less  powerful  maritime  states, 
was  formally  established  by  the  Bering  Sea  Tribunal.  While 
the  denial  of  the  United  States'  claim  removed  the  last  preten- 
sion to  jurisdiction  on  the  open  sea  and  discouraged  the  sub- 
sequent establishment  of  similar  restrictions,  the  exercise  of 
sovereignty  by  certain  nations  over  enclosed  seas,  and  extensive 
bays  and  marginal  waters  continued,  constituting  notable  limi- 
tations upon  the  freedom  of  fishing  and  navigation. 

Excessive  Claims  to  Marginal  Waters. —  The  exercise 
of  sovereignty  over  marginal  waters  acquires  validity  from  the 
patent  ability  of  the  adjacent  state  to  command  the  coastal 
waters  by  means  of  shore  batteries  and  the  coast  guard,  and 
from  the  undeniable  necessity  of  establishing  such  control  for 
the  security  of  the  fiscal  and  commercial  interests  of  the  state 
and  for  the  safety  of  the  inhabitants.  The  boundary  of  mar- 
ginal territorial  waters  has  been  fixed  by  general  maritime 
practice  at  one  marine  league  from  shore.  ^ 

In  establishing  this  limitation  to  more  extended  claims  over 
the  marginal  sea,  the  particular  interests  of  the  great  mari- 
time powers  are  discernable,  seeking  the  most  complete  free- 
dom for  the  expansion  of  over-seas  transportation.  Some 
states  regard  the  generally  recognized  three-mile  limit  as  inade- 
quate for  their  peculiar  situation  and  attempt  the  exercise  of 
jurisdiction  further  seaward.  Such  claims  to  the  adjacent 
seas,  exceeding  the  usual  marine  league,  regardless  of  the  ap- 
parent justice  of  the  particular  claim,  must  be  regarded  as  a 
restriction  upon  the  freedom  of  the  sea,  as  long  as  the  consen- 
sus of  international  opinion  adheres  to  the  narrower  limitation. 
As  Hall  observes : 

"  It  is  felt,  and  growingly  felt,  not  only  that  the  width  of 
three  miles  is  insufficient  for  the  safety  of  the  territory,  but 

lA  statute  mile  =  5,280  feet.,  1609  metres;  a  nautical  mile  =  6,080  ft., 
1852  metres;  a  league  =  18,240  ft.,  5556  metres,  or  three  nautical  miles. 


128  INTEBlSrATIOISrAl,    WATERWAYS 

that  it  is  desirable  for  a  state  to  have  control  of  a  larger  space 
of  water  for  the  purpose  of  regulating  and  preserving  the  fish- 
eries in  it,  the  productiveness  of  sea-fisheries  being  seriously 
threatened  by  the  destructive  methods  of  fishing  which  are 
commonly  employed,  and  in  many  places  by  the  greatly  in- 
creased number  of  fishing  vessels  frequenting  the  grounds. 
After  being  carefully  studied  and  reported  upon  by  a  Commit- 
tee of  the  Institut  de  Droit  International,  the  subject  was  ex- 
haustively discussed  by  the  Institut  at  its  meeting  in  Paris,  in 
1894,  the  exceptionally  large  number  of  thirty-nine  members 
being  present.  With  regard  to  the  necessity  of  ascribing  a 
greater  breadth  than  three  miles  of  territorial  waters  to  the 
littoral  state  there  was  no  difference  of  opinion.  As  to  the 
extent  to  which  the  marginal  belt  should  be  enlarged,  and  the 
principle  upon  which  such  enlargement  should  be  based,  the 
same  unanimity  was  not  manifested;  but  ultimately  it  was  re- 
solved by  a  large  majority  that  a  zone  of  six  marine  miles  from 
low  water  mark  ought  to  be  considered  territorial  for  all  pur- 
poses, and  that  in  time  of  war  a  neutral  state  would  have  the 
right  to  extend  this  zone,  by  declaration  of  neutrality  or  by 
notification,  for  all  purposes  of  neutrality,  to  a  distance  from 
shore  corresponding  to  the  extreme  range  of  cannon."  (Hall, 
"International  Law,"  5th  Edit,  154.) 

Whatever  burden  results  from  the  increased  territorial  juris- 
diction derived  from  the  seaward  extension  of  the  marginal 
sea,  falls  chiefly  upon  the  fishing  industries  of  foreig-n  states, 
inasmuch  as  the  right  of  innocent  passage  secures  the  unin- 
terrupted enjoyment  of  navigation  to  all  maritime  states,  re- 
gardless of  the  width  of  territorial  waters  established.  Indeed, 
the  extensions  to  the  usual  three-mile  limit,  at  present  existing, 
contemplate,  almost  exclusively,  the  protection  of  coastal  fish- 
eries, subject  to  the  paramount  right  of  foreign  navigation. 

Great  Britain  regulates  the  pearl  fisheries  of  Ceylon  for  a 
distance  of  twenty  miles  seaward,  basing  the  claim  of  jurisdic- 
tion upon  an  appropriation  of  the  bed  of  the  sea.     Norway  ex- 


LIMITATIONS    ON    FEEEDOM    OF    THE    SEAS  129 

ercises  an  exclusive  claim  to  fisheries  within  four  nautical 
miles  of  the  coast,  this  limitation  being  so  construed  as  to  in- 
clude many  large  bays  and  fiords.  On  December  11,  1911, 
Kussia  voluntarily  abandoned  further  claim  to  extend  the  limit 
of  territorial  waters  from  three  to  twelve  miles  from  the  coast.  ^ 
Bays  and  Gulfs. —  Clearer  instances  of  existing  encroach- 
ments upon  the  open  sea  appear  in  the  appropriation  of  bays 
and  gulfs,  as  maritime  territory,  when  the  distance  from  shore 
to  shore  greatly  exceeds  the  permissible  six  miles.  Basically 
these  claims  arise  from  an  inordinate  extension  of  the  mar- 
ginal sea  across  the  entrance  waters.  France  claims  bays 
and  inlets  which  do  not  exceed  the  maximum  width  of  ten 
miles;  Holland  considers  the  Zuyder  Zee  territorial  water; 
Great  Britain  exercises  jurisdiction  over  large  bays  on  the 
English,  Scotch,  and  Canadian  coasts ;  while  the  United  States 
has  virtually  appropriated  the  waters  of  Delaware  and  Chesa- 
peake bays.  (Hall,  "  International  Law,"  5th  Edit.,  150, 
155-158.)  Eurthermore,  in  the  British-Erench  Convention  of 
1839  and  1843,  and  the  N'orth  Sea  Convention  of  1882,  the 
width  of  ten  miles  at  the  mouth  is  adopted  as  the  definition, 
with  certain  exceptions,  for  determining  which  are  to  be  treated 
as  territorial  waters,  in  fulfilling  the  provisions  of  the  conven- 
tions. The  practical  circumstances  which  govern  necessitate 
this  definition  in  fishery  conventions.  The  waters  on  either 
side  of  the  bay,  within  three  miles  of  the  shore  are  admittedly 
territorial,  and  it  is  consequently  assumed  that  any  attempt  to 
fish  in  the  narrow  strip  of  water  remaining  in  the  middle  of 
bays  which  are  less  than  ten  miles  in  width  will  be  unprofitable, 

1  Denmark  continued  to  claim  a  twenty-mile  marginal  sea  surrounding 
the  coasts  of  Iceland,  founded  upon  immemorial  use,  but  by  the  fishing 
regulations  of  1872,  the  ordinary  three-mile  limit  was  voluntarily  estab- 
lished.    Hall,  5th  Ed.,  pg.  148. 

The  revenue  acts  of  some  nations  provide  for  the  exercise  of  govern- 
mental authority  beyond  the  usual  extent  of  the  marginal  sea.  Justifica- 
tion for  the  consequent  interference  with  the  movements  of  foreign  ves- 
sels while  traversing  the  high  seas  is  sought  in  the  plea  of  national  self- 
defense,  but  no  general  consent  of  nations  exists  to  accord  this  practice 
the  semblance  of  legality.     Moore,  "  Digest,"  I,  pg.  726. 


130  INTERNATIONAL    WATERWAYS 

and  would  be  attended  with  a  constant  risk  of  violating  the 
rights  of  the  territorial  sovereig-n.  (Moore,  "  Digest,"  I, 
717.) 

Great  Britain,  in  claiming  dominion  over  Conception  Bay 
on  the  N'ewfoundland  coast,  and  the  United  States,  by  assuming 
exclusive  jurisdiction  over  Delaware  and  Chesapeake  bays, 
were  compelled  to  seek  vindication  of  these  extensive  claims 
on  grounds  other  than  an  appeal  to  the  right  of  the  marginal 
sea  would  warrant.  The  fact  that  the  British  Government 
had  exercised  dominion  over  Conception  Bay  for  an  extended 
period  with  the  acquiescence  of  other  maritime  nations,  to- 
gether with  the  enactments  of  Parliament,  declaring  that  this 
bay  constituted  an  integral  part  of  the  national  domain,  suf- 
ficed to  establish  the  British  claim  of  sovereignty,  although 
the  entrance  of  the  bay  is  approximately  forty  miles  wide. 
(Direct  II.  S.  Cable  Co.  vs.  Anglo-American  Telegraph  Co., 
(1877),  L.  R,  2  App.  Cas.,  394.)      (Moore,  "  Digest,"  I,  74-0.) 

In  establishing  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the  United 
States  over  the  waters  of  the  Delaware  and  Chesapeake  bays, 
the  Second  Court  of  Commissioners  of  the  Alabama  Claims 
decided  that  "  its  headlands  (Chesapeake  Bay)  are  well 
marked,  and  but  twelve  miles  apart;  that  it  and  its  tributaries 
are  wholly  within  our  own  territory;  that  the  boundary  lines 
of  adjacent  States  encompass  it;  that  from  the  earliest  history 
of  the  country  it  has  been  claimed  to  be  territorial  waters,  and 
that  the  claim  has  never  been  questioned;  that  it  cannot  be- 
come the  pathway  from  one  nation  to  another;  and  remember- 
ing the  doctrines  of  the  recognized  authorities  upon  interna- 
tional law,  as  well  as  the  holdings  of  the  English  Courts  as  to 
the  Bristol  Channel  and  Conception  Bay,  and  bearing  in  mind 
the  matter  of  the  brig  Grange  and  the  position  of  the  Gov- 
ernment as  to  Delaware  Bay,  we  are  forced  to  the  conclusion 
that  Chesapeake  Bay  must  be  held  to  be  wholly  within  the 
territorial  jurisdiction  and  authority  of  the  Government  of  the 
United  States."  (Stetson  vs.  United  States,  "  Court  of  Com- 
missioners of  Alabama  Claims,"  1885.)      (32  "Albany  Law 


LIMITATIONS    ON    FKEEDOM    OF    THE    SEAS  131 

Journal,"  484.)  (Scott,  "Cases,"  143.)  (Moore,  "Interna- 
tional Arbitrations,"  IV,  4332-4341;  Vol.  V,  4675.)  (Moore, 
"Digest,"  I,  742.) 

Entire  Seas. —  Wbile  it  is  apparent  that  moderate  restric- 
tions still  endure  on  certain  maritime  waters  close  in-shore, 
the  former  pretensions  to  sovereignty  on  the  open  seas  no 
longer  exist,  since  even  the  exclusive  sovereignty  established 
throughout  the  Inland  Sea  of  Japan,  the  unique  instance  con- 
sidered by  certain  publicists  as  a  derogation  from  the  uni- 
versally recognized  principle,  merely  involves  the  customary 
practice  of  appropriating  bays  and  other  enclosed  maritime 
waters,  the  inaccurate  and  misleading  nomenclature,  by  em- 
ploying improperly  the  term  "  sea,"  causes  the  confusion  oc- 
casionally arising  with  reference  to  this  appropriation. 

However,  the  dominion  exercised  by  the  Japanese  Govern- 
ment over  this  enclosed  sea  differs  materially  from  that  which 
is  elsewhere  recognized  over  marginal,  territorial  waters,  ad- 
mitting the  right  of  innocent  passage.  The  exclusive  rights 
maintained  on  the  Inland  Sea  of  Japan  correspond  to  those 
enjoyed  by  the  United  States  within  the  Chesapeake  and  Dela- 
ware bays,  for  it  is  considered  maritime  territory,  thus  justify- 
ing the  exclusion  of  foreign  shipping  whenever  essential  for  the 
security  of  the  national  interests. 

The  valuable  fisheries,  in  which  all  maritime  nations  should 
be  at  liberty  to  participate,  were  these  waters  in  reality  a  por- 
tion of  the  high  seas,  are  reserved  exclusively  for  Japan.  ^ 

Restrictions  on  the  Black  Sea. —  At  a  former  time,  Turkey 
similarly  asserted  an  exclusive  ownership  throughout  the  Black 

1  In  deciding  the  case  of  the  "  Emperor  of  Japan  vs.  the  P.  &  0.  S.  S. 
Co.,"  the  British  Supreme  Court  at  Shanghai  declared  that  the  Inland 
Sea  of  Japan  constituted  a  part  of  the  high  seas,  but  on  appeal  the  Eng- 
lish Privy  Council  reversed  this  decision,  without  attempting  to  determine 
the  actual  character  of  the  Inland  Sea  under  international  law. 

Regarding  the  re-opening  of  the  Inland  Sea,  consult  the  Agreement  of 
Yokohama  of  July  25,  186.3,  signed  by  the  representatives  of  France, 
Great  Britain,  the  Netherlands,  and  the  United  States  for  the  purpose  of 
ensuring  united  effort  by  the  Occidental  Powers ;  Hertslet,  "  Commercial 
Treaties,"  Vol.  XII,  pg.  589. 


132  INTERNATIONAL    WATERWAYS 

Sea,  chiefly  because  it  was  enclosed  by  Turkish  territory. 
(Wheaton,  Lawi'ence'  Edit.,  329.)  During  the  nineteenth 
century,  through  European  intervention,  the  Black  Sea  was 
declared  free,  though  Turkey  was  permitted  to  retain  cer- 
tain restrictive  rights  over  the  Bosphorus  and  Dardanelles. 
In  consequence,  a  paradoxical  situation  was  established;  the 
Black  Sea,  nominally  an  interior  sea  and  available  for  the  un- 
restricted navigation  of  all  maritime  powers  under  the  law  of 
nations,  became  politically  and  geographically  a  closed  sea, 
since  the  straits  affording  access  to  and  from  the  waterways 
of  the  world  might  at  any  time  be  closed  at  the  will  of  the 
Turkish  Empire.  ("  Revue  des  Deux  Mondes,"  XXIX, 
pg.  807.) 

In  1905,  a  recrudescence  of  the  former  restrictive  policy  ap- 
peared in  the  agitation  for  neutralizing  the  Baltic,  Following 
the  Declaration  of  Independence  by  Norway  and  the  visit  of  the 
German  Emperor  to  Copenhagen,  there  was  short-lived  agita- 
tion, sedulously  fostered  by  the  German  press,  to  secure  the 
closure  of  the  Baltic,  as  an  inland  sea,  so  that  the  nations  en- 
joying dominion  upon  the  surrounding  coasts  might  undertake 
co-operative  measures  for  excluding  foreign  war-ships.  Al- 
most immediately  a  portion  of  the  English  fleet  was  despatched 
on  a  cruise  through  the  Baltic  to  demonstrate  that  the  free- 
dom of  navigation  by  merchant  or  war-vessels  within  these 
waters  could  not  be  denied  to  foreign  powers  with  impunity. 
It  is  noteworthy  that  no  Baltic  power  acted  upon  the  sugges- 
tion of  establishing  the  contemplated  restrictions  upon  the 
Baltic,  a  recognition  of  the  principle  that  any  attempt  to  close 
the  open  sea  against  belligerent  action  is  as  indefensible  as 
excluding  peaceful  commerce  and  fishing. 

Though  the  proposed  restrictions  on  the  Baltic  failed,  the 
limitations  upon  the  Black  Sea,  on  the  Inland  Sea  of  Japan, 
and  over  certain  extensive  bays  and  gulfs  still  endure.  The 
indefensible  restrictions  continually  imposed  upon  the  Black 
Sea  and  the  Inland  Sea  of  Japan,  together  with  the  limitations 


LIMITATIONS    ON    FREEDOM    OF   THE    SEAS  133 

arising  through  the  extravagant  claims  to  gulfs,  bays,  and  the 
marginal  sea  which  still  exist  elsewhere  throughout  the  world, 
are  for  the  most  part  remnants  of  an  earlier  regime  in  inter- 
national relations  which  countenanced  the  appropriation  of 
the  high  seas.  Though  the  principle  of  the  freedom  of  the  seas, 
manifestly  fully  applicable  only  during  peace,  has  achieved  uni- 
versal acceptance,  these  derogations  continue  to  endure  in  fact, 
being  imposed  in  some  instances  by  the  very  maritime  states 
which  on  former  occasions  most  urgently  sought  the  abolition  of 
all  restrictions  on  the  sea.  In  relation  to  the  heavy  burdens 
imposed  upon  the  enterprise  of  all  maritime  states,  sanctioned 
by  the  law  of  nations,  during  the  progress  of  naval  warfare, 
these  isolated  instances  of  appropriation  of  the  open  waters  of 
the  sea  are  comparatively  unimportant. 

Limitations  During  War. —  War  denies  the  unrestricted 
use  of  the  sea,  varying  in  extent  with  the  magnitude  of  the 
conflict,  but  neutral  commerce  can  demand  no  redress  for  the 
belligerent  exactions,  provided  that  the  customary  laws  of  war 
are  observed.  With  the  outbreak  of  war  belligerents  may  visit 
and  search  all  vessels  on  the  high  seas  to  establish  their  nation- 
ality, whether  neutral  or  enemy,  and  the  character  of  their 
service,  whether  innocent  or  noxious.  If  the  circumstances 
warrant,  the  vessels  thus  detained  and  examined  may  be 
seized  and  subsequently  condemned  in  prize  court  proceedings. 
By  the  exercise  of  rights  accorded  by  the  law  of  war,  bel- 
ligerents may  seize  enemy  ships  wherever  found,  except  when 
within  the  territorial  waters  of  neutral  states.  The  ships  of 
neutrals  are  similarly  subjected  to  seizure  and  condemnation 
while  in  the  enemy  service,  or  while  endeavoring  to  violate 
an  effective  blockade,  or  under  certain  circumstances,  while 
engaged  in  carrying  contraband.  In  addition  belligerents  may 
restrict  the  use  of  the  high  seas  by  maintaining  an  effective 
blockade  of  the  enemy's  coasts,  extending  for  an  indefinite 
distance  sea-ward,  and  by  excluding  neutral  vessels  from 
the  radius  of  action  while  engaged  in  battles  on  the  high 
seas^  but  the  establishment  of  "  strategic  areas "  through  the 


134  INTERN'ATIOITAL    WATERWAYS 

employment  of  contact  mines  or  other  means  has  not  re- 
ceived the  sanction  of  international  law.  The  restrictions 
imposed  by  war  upon  neutral  shipping  cannot  be  considered 
an  unwarranted  exercise  of  sovereignty  on  the  seas,  since 
the  practice  of  all  maritime  nations  recognizes  the  necessity 
and  legality  of  this  belligerent  procedure.  It  is  recognized 
that  the  complete  observance  of  the  rights  of  neutrals  would 
deprive  sea-power  of  its  chief  value,  while  the  accordance  of 
the  fullest  license  to  belligerent  sea-power  would  restrict 
neutral  enterprise  unbearably  and  unwarrantably.  The  laws 
of  maritime  warfare  represent  a  virtual  compromise  between 
the  irreconcilable  interests  of  neutrals  and  belligerents,  en- 
gendered by  the  abnormal  conditions  existing  during  war.  A 
belligerent  or  neutral  action,  violating  the  established  princi- 
ples of  international  law  governing  maritime  warfare,  consti- 
tutes either  a  limitation  on  the  freedom  of  the  seas,  or  an 
invasion  of  the  recognized  rights  of  belligerency,  warranting 
ultimate  redress. 

Changing  conditions  of  naval  warfare  may  require  unprece- 
dented procedure,  necessitating  indemnification  if  the  illegal- 
ity of  the  act  is  subsequently  established.  Belligerents  are 
more  frequently  the  transgressors,  employing  innovations  in 
the  pursuit  of  victory  which  may  seriously  infringe  the  rights 
of  neutrals.  Many  innovations  are  constructive,  necessary 
changes  in  the  laws  of  war  necessitated  by  modern  mechanical 
industries  and  inventions,  and  the  eventual  rejection  or  adop- 
tion of  the  objectionable  practice  by  nations  in  their  mutual, 
subsequent  relations  will  determine  legality.  An  adequate  con- 
sideration of  restrictions  recently  imposed  on  neutral  maritime 
commerce  would  demand  disproportionate  space,  and  brief 
reference  to  the  more  serious  impositions  must  suffice  to  illus- 
trate the  constant  dangers  and  costly  delays  encountered  by 
neutral  vessels  during  maritime  war.  A  most  scrupulous  ob- 
servance of  neutrality  will  not  always  vouchsafe  security  for 
the  over-seas  commerce  of  a  nation,  in  the  event  that  the  bel^ 


LIMITATIONS    ON    FEEEDOM    OF    THE    SEAS  135 

ligerents  are  intent  on  achieving  victory  regardless  of  the 
corresponding  rights  of  neutrals. 

In  the  ISTapoleonic  Wars,  the  United  States  became,  eventu- 
ally, the  only  neutral  nation  of  importance  and  was  forced  to 
endure  extravagant  denials  of  neutral  rights,  principally  in 
the  form  of  paper  blockades  established  by  the  British  Orders 
in  Council,  and  the  ISTapoleonic  Decrees.  Napoleon,  in  his 
endeavor  to  subdue  England,  sought  to  destroy  all  neutral  com- 
merce destined  for  British  ports.  By  the  Milan  Decree,  De- 
cember 17,  1807,  ISTapoleon  proclaimed  that  any  ships  which 
submitted  to  visit  and  search  by  British  vessels;  consented  to 
voyage  to  Great  Britain;  paid  any  tax  to  the  English  Govern- 
ment ;  or  sailed  to  or  from  a  British  port  or  one  of  the  British 
possessions,  or  any  port  of  a  country  occupied  by  British  forces, 
would  be  condemned  by  the  French  Prize  Courts  upon  capture. 
The  British  Orders  in  Council  were  quite  as  indefensible  and 
particularly  incensed  the  United  States  because  their  imposi- 
tion was  aggravated  by  the  continued  and  unjustifiable  exercise 
of  the  claim  of  impressment.  By  the  Order  in  Council  of  No- 
vember 11,  1807,  Great  Britain  forbade  all  neutral  vessels  to 
trade  with  ports  in  the  control  of  France  or  Napoleon's  allies, 
or  even  with  any  port  in  Europe  which  excluded  the  vessels  of 
Great  Britain,  unless  permission  should  be  obtained  at  a 
British  port. 

The  United  States  opposed  the  exaggerated  denials  of  neu- 
tral rights  embodied  in  the  British  Orders  and  the  French 
Decrees  by  protests,  measures  of  non-intercourse,  the  estab- 
lishment of  embargoes,  and,  against  Great  Britain,  by  armed 
resistance  to  these  indefensible  pretensions.  An  embargo  was 
established  upon  the  suggestion  of  Thomas  Jefferson  by  the 
Congressional  Act  of  December  22,  1807,  which  prohibited 
the  sailing  of  all  merchant  ships,  save  vessels  in  the  coasting 
trade,  from  any  American  port,  this  Act  being  supplemented 
by  the  still  more  stringent  legislation  of  January  9,  1808.  In- 
censed by  this  effort  at  retaliatory  legislation.  Napoleon  issued 


136  INTERNATIOISrAL    WATERWAYS 

the  Bayonne  Decree,  April  17,  1808,  stipulating  tliat  all  Ameri- 
can vessels  which  should  enter  the  ports  of  France,  Italy,  or 
the  Hanse  Towns  should  be  seized  "  because  no  vessels  of  the 
United  States  can  now  navigate  the  seas  without  violating  the 
law  of  those  States."  (Eichardson,  "  Messages,"  Vol.  X,  pg. 
261.) 

Since  the  I^apoleonic  period  there  have  occurred  no  great 
maritime  wars,  and,  in  the  interim,  modern  invention  has  pro- 
vided many  mechanical  developments,  including  the  steam- 
ship, railroad  transportation,  and  wireless  communication, 
revolutionizing  former  concepts  and  rendering  former  regula- 
tions inadequate  and  obsolete.  The  Franco-Prussian  War, 
1870;  the  Kusso-Turkish  War,  1877;  the  war  between  Chili 
and  Peru,  1879;  the  Spanish-American  War,  1898;  and  the 
South  African  War,  1900,  proceeded  along  the  established, 
orthodox  principles,  since  the  maritime  conflict  was  of  short 
duration  and  engendered  few  complicated  situations  respect- 
ing neutral  rights.  But  with  the  Kusso- Japanese  War,  1903- 
1904,  practices  were  instituted  which  have  enjoyed  an  exotic 
development  in  the  present  conflict,  frequently  disregarding 
neutral  property  rights,  and  even  endangering  the  safety  of 
neutrals  and  non-combatants. 

During  the  Russo-Japanese  War,  belligerents  were  permit- 
ted to  sink  neutral  prizes,  to  warn  neutral  vessels  from  enter- 
ing certain  strategic  areas,  thus  denying  the  right  of  using  the 
common  highway  of  the  open  sea,  and  to  scatter  mines  on  the 
open  sea,  rendering  navigation  in  those  regions  constantl;y 
dangerous  long  after  the  termination  of  the  war.  The  inno- 
vation, during  the  Russo-Japanese  War,  of  the  strategic  area, 
a  belligerent  appropriation  of  the  high  seas  reserved  for  hostile 
enterprises,  has  been  extended  in  the  World  War  (1914-1919) 
to  include  entire  seas.  An  exercise  of  belligerent  power  so  con- 
tradictory to  the  principle  of  the  freedom  of  the  seas  is  inde- 
fensible; while  the  practice  of  indiscriminate  mine-sowing 
within  the  appropriated  area  partakes  of  a  criminal  character, 
inasmuch  as  vessels,  cargoes,   and  human  lives   are  seriously 


LIMITATIONS    ON    FREEDOM    OF    THE    SEAS  137 

endangered  for  an  indeterminate  period  following  the  con- 
clusion of  peace. 

The  indiscriminate  sinking  of  merchantmen  by  submarines, 
frequently  without  warning,  affords  further  evidence  of  the 
present  denial  of  neutral  rights  wherever  belligerent  necessity 
appears  paramount;  but  the  manner  in  which  the  submarine  is 
employed  by  the  Central  Powers  in  the  course  of  the  present 
conflict  is  so  savage  and  indefensible  that  consideration  of  the 
legality  is  as  superfluous  as  it  is  futile.  The  sinking  of  mer- 
chant vessels,  whether  of  neutral  or  belligerent  registry,  with- 
out warning,  without  even  the  slightest  pretense  of  establishing 
their  hostile  character  by  visit  and  search  or  otherwise,  with- 
out the  slightest  endeavor  being  made  to  provide  for  the  safety 
of  the  passengers  and  crew  aboard,  must  search  throughout 
the  history  of  the  sea,  in  vain,  for  precedent,  for  a  comparable 
display  of  such  wanton  cruelty. 

The  unprecedented  extension  of  contraband ;  the  employment 
of  a  doctrine  of  continuous  voyage  which  contemplates  ultimate 
consumption  rather  than  ultimate  destination;  and  the  estab- 
lishment of  pseudo-blockades,  which  debar  commerce  from 
neutral  and  belligerent  ports  alike,  has  effected  a  limitation  of 
legitimate,  maritime  commerce  which  neutral  states  may  enjoy 
with  each  other  and  with  their  colonies,  and  with  belligerent 
ports  under  certain  limitations,  which  can  only  be  condoned 
by  reference  to  the  reciprocal  ruthlessness  of  the  World  War. 

In  defense  of  these  unwarranted  restrictions  it  may  be  urged 
that  fundamental  developments  in  commerce,  industry,  and 
governmental  institutions  have  rendered  former  regulations  of 
warfare  inapplicable.  A  government  engaged  in  war  may 
mobilize  the  national  economic  resources  so  exhaustively  that 
it  becomes  impossible  to  determine  contraband  in  accordance 
with  the  established  practice.  It  becomes  increasingly  difiicult 
to  designate  goods  which  are  clearly  useful  for  military  pur- 
poses and  those  wholly  innocent,  and,  in  consequence,  the  con- 
traband list  becomes  progressively  more  comprehensive. 

The  alternative  or  supplementary  procedure  is  the  mainte- 


138  INTEEJSTATIONAI,    WATERWAYS 

nance  of  a  blockade,  a  method  of  curtailing  enemy  commerce 
which  has  become  highly  dangerous  for  the  blockading  squadron 
due  to  the  perfection  of  submarines  and  air  craft,  as  well  as 
being  unsatisfactory  because  of  the  development  of  facilities  for 
rapid  inland  transportation  by  railways  and  waterways,  per- 
mitting the  importation  of  goods  through  the  ports  of  adjacent 
neutral  countries.  The  Declaration  of  Paris  provided  that 
blockades,  in  order  to  be  binding  must  be  effective;  that  is  to 
say,  maintained  by  force  sufficient  really  to  prevent  access  to 
the  coasts  of  the  enemy.  By  signing  the  Treaty  of  Paris, 
March  30,  1856,  Austria,  France,  Great  Britain,  Prussia,  Rus- 
sia, Sardinia  and  Turkey  agreed  to  the  Declaration  which  was 
included  in  the  text  of  the  Treaty,  and  this  principle  has  since 
been  recognized  and  subscribed  to  by  all  civilized  nations.  The 
effectiveness  of  a  blockade  is  manifestly  a  question  of  fact  and 
if  it  is  apparent  that  the  blockade  does  not  apply  impartially 
to  the  vessels  of  all  nations,  it  cannot  be  considered  legally 
binding. 

Lord  Robert  Cecil,  Parliamentary  Under  Secretary  for 
Foreign  Affairs,  has  frankly  recognized  the  inadequacy  of  the 
British  pseudo-blockade,  which  is  incapable  of  restricting  trade 
between  German  Baltic  ports  and  those  of  Denmark,  Norway 
and  Sweden,  declaring  in  the  House  of  Commons  that  Great 
Britain  was  endeavoring  to  do  with  success  something  that 
no  nation  had  ever  tried  before,  the  blockade  of  an  enemy  state 
through  neutral  countries.  Heretofore,  it  has  been  a  cardinal 
principle  of  international  law  that  the  blockade  of  neutral 
ports,  during  the  progress  of  war,  is  absolutely  forbidden. 

A  complex  and  difficult  situation,  quite  as  serious  as  that 
arising  through  the  impossibility  of  maintaining  the  "  close  " 
blockade,  and  affecting  the  interests  of  belligerents  and  neutrals 
alike,  has  developed  from  the  possibility  of  corporate  owner- 
ship of  vessels,  inasmuch  as  the  laws  determining  the  right  of 
national  registry  are  at  wide  variance  among  maritime  states. 
If  a  belligerent,  on  the  seizure  of  a  vessel  owned  by  a  neutral 
corporation,  should  refuse  to  accept  the  registry  as  conclusive 


LIMITATIONS    ON    FREEDOM    OF   THE    SEAS  139 

evidence  of  enemy  character  and  should  proceed  to  investigate 
the  corporate  nationality  in  search  of  enemy  shareholders  to 
warrant  the  condemnation  of  the  vessel,  while  providing  com- 
pensation for  the  neutral  shareholders,  the  resultant  chaotic 
situation  would  become  a  virtual  denial  of  neutral  navigation 
on  the  high  seas.  The  innovation  might  be  carried  farther,  in 
practice,  and  applied  to  merchandise  owned  by  neutral  corpora- 
tions. The  consequent  endeavor  to  establish  enemy  share- 
holders would  plunge  all  commerce  into  an  interminable  liti- 
gation. On  the  other  hand,  if  no  attempt  were  made  to 
discover  enemy  ownership  under  the  protection  of  neutral  cor- 
porations in  maritime  states  having  lax  regulations  governing 
registry,  it  might  be  possible  for  a  belligerent,  maritime  state, 
which  was  incapable  of  defending  vessels  of  its  own  registry  on 
the  high  seas,  to  secure  a  dominant  share  of  stock  in  neutral 
ship-owning  corporations,  and  direct  the  movements  of  the 
vessels,  accordingly.  Many  of  the  advantages  which  would  be 
enjoyed  were  the  vessels  sailing  under  the  belligerent  flag  might 
be  acquired,  especially  in  instances  where  the  belligerent  share- 
holders could  control  the  policies  of  the  corporation. 

Condemnation  follows  the  seizure  of  an  enemy  merchant 
ship,  while  a  vessel  of  neutral  registry  is  inviolable,  whether 
owned  by  an  individual,  a  neutral  partnership,  or  a  corpora- 
tion, except  for  infractions  of  the  law  of  contraband  and  block- 
ade. There  is  no  legal  difference,  as  to  a  plea  of  alien  enemy, 
between  a  corporation  and  an  individual.  ("  Society  of  the 
Propagation  of  the  Gospel  vs.  Wheeler,"  2  Gall.  105.)  ("  Mar- 
tine  vs.  Life  Insurance  Society,"  53  ^N".  Y.  339.)  (Moore, 
"Digest,"  VII,  434.) 

Wherever  aliens  may  become  shareholders  in  shipping  cor- 
porations complications  may  arise.^ 

1  At  the  Venice  meeting  of  the  Institute  of  International  Law  (1896), 
a  resolution  was  adopted  governing  the  use  of  the  national  flag  for  mer- 
chant ships  which  provided: 

"  Section  I :     Acquisition  of  the  Right  to  the  Flag  of  a  State. 

"  Article  1.  The  ship  should  be  inscribed  on  the  register  kept  for  this 
purpose  by  authorized  officials,  in  conformity  with  the  laws  of  the  State. 


140  INTERNATIONAL    WATERWAYS 

The  navigation  laws  of  the  leading  maritime  countries  dis- 
close a  wide  variance  and  latitude  respecting  the  grant  of  na- 
tional registry  where  shares  in  the  corporation  are  held  by 
aliens. 

United  States  Law  of  Registry. —  Under  the  navigation 
laws  of  the  United  States  "  the  registration  of  a  vessel  is  not 
compulsory  upon  her  owner.  It  is  a  privilege  or  advantage 
of  which  he  may  or  may  not  avail  himself,  as  he  chooses.  The 
statute  merely  provides  that  vessels  not  registered  pursuant  to 
law,  except  such  as  shall  be  duly  qualified  according  to  law, 
for  carrying  on  the  coasting  or  fishing  trade,  shall  not  be  re- 
garded as  vessels  of  the  United  States  and  shall  not  be  entitled 
to  the  benefits  and  privileges  pertaining  to  such  vessels." 

"  Registration  under  the  American  flag  is  restricted  to  ves- 
sels owned  wholly  by  American  citizens.  A  citizen  may,  how- 
ever, be  an  entity  like  a  corporation  organized  and  chartered 
under  the  laws  of  the  United  States  and  the  States  thereof; 
and  citizens  of  foreign  countries  may  own  stock  in 
such  corporations."  ("  U.  S.  Rev.  Stat."  4131,  enacted  June 
17,  1864.)      ("  Spec.  Agents'  Series  #  114,"  1916,  pg.  8.) 

"  Various  documents  are  necessary  to  the  proper  registration 
of  a  vessel  under  the  laws  of  the  United  States.  A  carpenter's 
certificate  testifying  that  the  vessel'  was  built  under  his  direc- 
tion and  containing  descriptive  details  must  be  produced. 
("  U.  S.  Rev.  Stat."  4147.)  The  owner  of  the  vessel  or,  if 
possible,  the  master,  applying  for  registration  must  make  oath 
as  to  his  nationality  and  to  the  nationality  of  all  the  owners 

"  Article  2.  To  be  inscribed  on  tbis  register,  more  than  half  the  ship 
must  be  the  property: 

1.  Of  nationals;  or 

2.  Of  a  company  imder  a  collective  name  or  a  commandite,  of  which 
more  than  half  the  members  personally  responsible  are  nationals;   or 

3.  Of  a  national  stock  company  (joint-stock  or  commandite),  two- 
thirds  at  least  of  the  directors  of  which  are  nationals;  the  same  rule 
applies  to  associations  and  other  legal  persons  owning  ships. 

"Article  3.  The  concern  (whether  an  individual  shipoAvner,  a  company 
or  a  corporation)  must  have  its  headquarters  in  the  State  whose  flag  the 
ship  must  fly  and  in  which  it  must  be  registered." 

(Institut  de  Droit  International;  Annuaire;  Vol,  15,  pg.  201;  Car- 
negie trans,,  pgs,  135-137.) 


LIMITATIONS    ON    FREEDOM    OF    THE   SEAS  14:1 

of  the  ship,  if  there  be  more  than  one.  ("  U.  S.  Kev.  Stat." 
4142)  In  the  case  of  coepoeations,  it  is  provided  that 
the  president  or  secretary  or  any  other  duly  authorized  officer 
or  agent  of  the  company,  must  swear  to  the  ownership  of  the 
vessel  WITHOUT  designatino  the.  names  of  the  persons  com- 
posing the  company.  The  oath  of  an  officer  or  agent  is  suffi- 
cient without  requiring  the  oath  of  any  other  person  interested 
and  concerned  with  such  vessel."  ("  U.  S.  Kev.  Stat."  4139,  as 
amended  by  the  act  of  June  24,  1902.)  ("  Spec.  Agents 
Series,"  #114,  1916,  pg.  10.) 

"  Vessels  owned  by  American  citizens  have  always  been  en- 
titled to  fly  the  flag  of  the  United  States  without  being  docu- 
mented and  could  be  operated  under  the   American  flag  m 
foreign  waters.     Such  vessels  could  not,  however,  engage  m 
any  form  of  trade  with  American  ports  except  under  prohibi- 
tory penalties.     The  first  registry  act  of  September  1,  1789, 
confined  American  registry  to  ships  built  in  the  United  States. 
The  right  of  American  citizens,  however,  to  own  ships  built 
abroad  has  never  been  questioned,  and  was  very  clearly  affirmed 
in  the  letter  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  Secretary  of  State,  May  3, 
1793.     The    policy    of    encouraging    domestic    ship-buildmg 
adopted  in  the  first  years  of  the  Kepublic  had  for  its  purpose 
the  development  of  means  of  national  defense  rather  than  of 
protection  of  domestic  industry  in  the  sense  in  which  these 
words  are  used  in  tariff  discussions.     To  give  effect  to  this 
policy.  Congress  at  the  outset  passed  legislation  providing  that 
only  documented  ships  could  engage  in  the  trade  of  the  United 
States,  and  divided  these  documents  into  three  classes:  First, 
the  register  for  general  purposes  of  trade  and  obligatory  in 
foreign  trade;  second,  the  enrollment  for  vessels  in  the  coasting 
trade;  and  third,  the  annual  license  authorizing  the  vessel  for 
a  year  to  engage  in  the  coasting  trade  or  in  the  fisheries,  re- 
spectively."     ("Annual    Keport,    Commissioner    of    Naviga- 
tion," 1914,  pg.  28-29.) 

The  British  Law  of  Registration.—  The  British  Naviga- 
tion Law  governing  the  registry  of  vessels  and  the  display  of 


142  INTERNATIONAL    WATERWAYS 

the  national  flag  is  lenient.  The  British  law  does  not  reqnire 
that  vessels  flying  the  British  flag  shall  have  been  constructed 
in  Great  Britain  or  its  possessions  or  that  such  vessels  shall  be 
officered  by  British  subjects  or  manned  by  British  crews  made 
up  in  whole  or  in  part  of  British  subjects.  However,  "  a  ship 
is  not  deemed  to  be  a  British  ship  unless  it  is  owned  wholly  by : 
(1)  ISTatural  born  British  subjects,  (2)  persons  legally  natural- 
ized, (3)  persons  made  denizens  by  letters  of  denization,  and 
(4)  bodies  corporate  established  under  and  subject  to  the  laws 
of  some  part  of  Great  Britain  and  having  their  principal  place 
of  business  in  those  dominions.  Every  registrar  of  British 
ships  is  required  to  keep  a  book  called  the  register  book,  in 
which  are  entered  the  name  and  description  of  her  o^vner  or 
owners.  A  corporation  must  be  registered  as  owner  by  its 
corporate  name.  In  addition  to  the  information  relating  to 
the  ownership  of  the  vessel,  there  must  also  be  entered  in  the 
registry  book  the  name  of  the  ship  and  the  port  to  which  she 
belongs,  the  tonnage  details  comprised  in  the  surveyor's  certifi- 
cate, and  the  particulars  respecting  her  origin  as  stated  in  the 
declaration  of  ownership."  ("  Great  Britain,  Merchant  Ship- 
ping Act  of  1894,"  Part  I,  sec.  1,  5.)  ("  Special  Agents' 
Series,"  #114,  1916,  pg.  11.) 

"  In  this  connection  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  under  the 
accepted  interpretation  of  the  term  "  British  ship,"  unless  it 
is  employed  by  a  government  under  marque,  the  nationality  of 
the  owner  is  generally  the  criterion  of  the  nationality  of  a  ves- 
sel, at  any  rate,  in  so  far  as  regards  the  duties  and  liabilities 
of  its  owners  and  persons  belonging  thereto.  Hence  a  British- 
owned  ship  is  a  British  ship  for  such  purposes,  even  if  it  is  not 
registered  in  Great  Britain,  or  if  it  is  registered  in  and  carries 
the  flag  of  a  foreign  country."  (Temperley  and  Moore,  "  The 
Merchant  Shipping  Acts,"  2nd  Edit.  (1907),  pg.  2.)  (Char- 
tered Mercantile  Bank  of  India  vs.  Netherlands  India  S.  N. 
Co.  (1883),  10  Queen's  Bench  Div.,  534-36.)  (Spec.  Agents' 
Series,  #  114,  1916,  pg.  11.) 

The  French  Law  of  Registry. —  In  France,  by  the  Law  of 


LIMITATIONS    ON    FREEDOM    OF   THE    SEAS  143 

September  21,  1793,  as  modified  by  the  Law  of  June  11,  1845, 
"  French  registry  is  accorded  only  to  vessels  at  least  fifty  per 
cent,  of  which  is  owned  by  French  citizens.  It  is  also  speci- 
fied that  the  captain,  the  ofiicers,  and  at  least  three-fourths  of 
the  crew  must  be  French  subjects.  An  exception  as  to  nation- 
ality of  the  crew  is  made  in  the  case  of  vessels  operating  in  the 
Far  East.  .  .  .  Since  in  the  case  of  vessels  belonging  to  cor- 
porations, it  is  difiicult  to  make  certain  that  the  required  con- 
ditions of  ownership  are  being  fulfilled,  the  customs  administra- 
tion, acting  under  a  decision  of  the  Conseil  d'Etat,  dated  April 
15,  1887,  grants  corporations  the  benefits  of  French  registra- 
tion only  provisionally  and  upon  the  condition  that  the  director 
must  prove  his  qualifications  as  a  director  and  as  a  French 
citizen,  and  likewise  prove  that  the  vessel  is  actually  owned 
by  the  society  (company)  of  which  he  is  a  director.  The  law 
of  April  7,  1902,  stipulates  that  joint  stock  companies  (societes 
anonymes)  or  other  legal  entities,  owning  vessels  that  receive 
one  of  the  subsidies  provided  for  by  this  law,  must  have  a  ma- 
jority of  French  citizens  in  their  executive  board,  or  board  of 
directors,  and  that  the  president  of  the  board  of  directors,  the 
managing  director,  and  the  manager  of  such  corporations  must 
be  French  citizens."  (French  Law  of  April  7,  1902,  regulat- 
ing the  Merchant  Marine,  Chap.  I,  Art.  1.)  (Spec.  Agents' 
Ser.,  #  114,  1916,  pg.  15.) 

"  Since  the  special  requirements  as  to  the  nationality  of  the 
ofiicers  and  directors  of  corporations  receiving  subsidies  under 
the  law  of  April  7,  1902,  offered  an  easy  solution  of  problems 
regarding  the  nationality  of  vessels  owned  by  corporations  and 
registered  under  the  general  registration  laws,  it  was  decided 
to  incorporate  these  special  requirements  in  the  general  reg- 
istration laws.  This  was  accomplished  by  a  circular  of  in- 
struction issued  January  26,  1910,  by  the  Customs  Service. 
The  universal  rule  now  is,  therefore,  that  all  corporations  ap- 
plying for  French  registers  must  show  that  the  president,  man- 
aging director,  and  manager,  as  well  as  a  majority  of  the  board 
of  directors,  are  citizens  of  France."      (Ripert,  "  Droit  mari- 


144  INTERNATIONAL  WATERWAYS 

time,"  (1913),  Vol.  I,  pg.  249.)  (Spec.  Agents'  Ser.,  #  114, 
1916,  pg.  15.  V 

"  The  French  law  specifies  three  circumstances  under  which 
a  vessel  forfeits  its  register:  (1)  By  refitting  and  repairing 
in  a  foreign  country  at  a  cost  of  more  than  fifteen  francs  per 
ton,  unless  in  case  of  necessity  that  is  approved  in  a  report 
signed  by  the  captain  and  officers  and  also;  according  to  the 
facilities  which  may  exist  in  the  port  in  which  such  refitting 
took  place;  by  the  consul  or  any  other  French  official,  or  by 
two  merchants  of  the  place;  (2)  by  the  alteration  in  build, 
or  tonnage,  or  in  any  other  respect,  without  obtaining  a  new 
certificate  of  French  registration;  and  (3)  by  the  sale  to  a 
FOEEiGNEE  of  the  wholc  or  more  than  one-half  interest  in  the 
ship."  (Loi  du  27  Vendemiaire,  An  II,  Art.  16,  as  modi- 
fied by  the  law  of  April  7,  1902,  Art.  15.)  (Spec.  Agents'  Ser., 
#  114,  pg.  16.) 

Navigation  Laws  of  Japan. —  By  the  navigation  laws  of 
Japan,  "  only  registered  vessels  are  allowed  to  operate  under  the 
Japanese  flag,  except  in  the  cases  of  sailing  vessels  of  less  than 
twenty  tons  gross,  or  of  less  than  two  hundred  koku  capacity; 
boats  or  vessels  of  any  kind  propelled  wholly  or  principally 
by  sculls  or  oars ;  hulks  and  laid-up  vessels ;  and  sailing  vessels 
employed  solely  in  navigating  smooth-water  routes.  Foreign- 
built  ships  may,  if  owned  by  Japanese  citizens,  be  granted 
Japanese  registration,  but  only  vessels  built  in  Japan  and 
owned  by  Japanese  citizens  can  engage  in  the  ocean  trade  re- 
ceiving subsidies  under  the  Ocean  Lines  Subsidy  Act  of  March 
25,  1909.  .  .  .  The  detailed  laws  relating  to  registration  are 
to  be  found  in  the  Law  of  Ships,  enacted  March  7,  1899,  and  in 
special  administrative  regulations  pertaining  thereto.  Article 
1  of  this  law  provides  as  follows : 

A  ship  is  a  Japanese  ship : 

1.  If  it  belongs  to  a  Japanese  public  authority ; 

1  The  port  to  which  a  French  vessel  belongs  and  where  it  registers  is 
deemed  to  be  its  legal  domicile.  Ordonnance  du  Octobre  31,  1784,  Tit. 
vii,  art.  7;  and  Rgglement  g^n^ral  de  1866,  Art.  170.  (Spec.  Agents' 
Ser.,  No.  114,  pg.  15.) 


LIMITATIONS    ON    FEEEDOM    OF    THE    SEAS  145 

2.  If  it  belongs  to  a  Japanese  subject; 

3.  If  it  belongs  to  a  commercial  company  having  its  prin- 

cipal office  in  Japan;  provided  all  the  partners  in  the 
case  of  an  ordinary  partnership,  all  the  partners  with 
unlimited  liability  in  the  case  of  a  limited  partnership 
or  a  joint-stock  limited  partnership,  and  all  the  di- 
rectors in  the  case  of  a  joint-stock  company  are  Japanese 
subjects ; 

4.  If  it  belongs  to  a  juridical  person  having  its  principal 

office  in  Japan,  provided  all  its  representatives  are  Jap- 
anese subjects ; 

5.  A  ship  belonging  to  a  limited  partnership  formed  before 

the  Commercial  Code  took  effect  is  a  Japanese  ship,  if 
all  the  managing  partners  are  Japanese  subjects." 
"A  ship  loses  its  Japanese  nationality  if  an  alien  becomes 
one  of  the  co-owners,  or  partner  in  an  ordinary  partnership, 
or  one  of  the  partners  with  unlimited  liability  in  a  limited 
partnership  or  in  a  joint-stock  limited  partnership  owning  the 
ship.  If  the  ship  belongs  to  a  corporation  (societe  anonyme), 
all  the  directors  must  be  Japanese  citizens,  otherwise  the  ship 
will  become  a  foreign  ship.  However,  the  transfer  to  an  alien 
of  shares  in  a  joint-stock  company  does  not  affect  the  nation- 
ality of  the  ship,  unless  the  alien  is  appointed  a  director." 
(Yang  Yin  Hang,  "  The  Commercial  Code  of  Japan,"  (trans- 
lation), Univ.  of  Penn.  Law  School  Ser.  'No.  1,  1911.)  (Spec. 
Agents'  Ser.  No.  114,  pg.  17.) 

Norwegian  Ship-Registry. —  I^orwegian  registry  is  re- 
stricted to  vessels  owned  exclusively  by  Norwegian  citizens. 
If  the  vessel  belongs  to  a  stock  company,  the  head  office  and  the 
place  of  management  must  be  in  Norway,  and  the  managers 
must  be  Norwegian  citizens  and  shareholders  (Norwegian 
Maritime  Law  of  July  20,  1893,  Chap.  1,  Sec.  1),  and  in  the 
event  of  a  change  occurring  in  the  nationality  of  the  owners 
"  with  the  result  that  the  ship  ceases  to  be  a  Norwegian  ship, 
her  name  shall  be  struck  off  only  when  after  four  months  no 
notification  shall  have  been  given  to  the  effect  that  the  owner- 


146  INTEENATIONAL,    WATERWAYS 

ship  has  been  so  arranged  as  to  prevent  the  ship  from  losing  her 
right  to  carry  the  ISTorwegian  flag."  (I^orwegian  Maritime  Law. 
of  May  4,  1901,  governing  the  Registration  of  Vessels,  Sec. 
16.)      (Spec.  Agents'  Ser.,  'No.  114,  pg.  13,  16.) 

Laws  of  Germany  Governing  Registration. —  The  Ger- 
man law  governing  the  employment  of  the  Imperial  mercantile 
flag  is  particularly  severe.  "  Vessels  flying  the  German  flag 
must  be  the  exclusive  property  of  German  citizens.  Regular 
partnerships  and  limited  partnerships  are  considered  as  Ger- 
man citizens,  if  the  personally  responsible  partners  are  all  cit- 
izens of  Germany;  likewise,  other  commercial  corporations, 
registered  companies,  and  other  legal  entities  if  they  have  head- 
quarters in  Germany,  and  limited  partnerships  with  shares,  if 
all  their  personally  responsible  stockholders  are  citizens  of 
Germany.  In  this  connection  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  if  an 
owner  of  an  interest  in  a  registered  German  vessel  loses  his 
citizenship;  or  if  an  interest  in  a  vessel  owned  by  a  German 
citizen  is  transferred  to  a  foreigner,  otherwise  than  by  sale 
(for  example,  by  inheritance,  the  introduction  of  joint  prop- 
erty in  marriage,  possession  by  limitation,  and  appropriation)  ; 
the  ship  retains  its  right  to  fly  the  German  flag  for  the  period 
of  one  year.  .  .  .  The  registration  laws  of  Germany  do  not 
require  that  vessels  flying  the  Gerrtian  flag  shall  have  been  con- 
structed in  Germany  or  that  such  vessels  shall  be  oflicered  by 
German  citizens  and  be  manned  in  whole  or  in  part  by  Ger- 
mans." ^ 

From  the  foregoing  comparison  of  the  navigation  laws  of  the 
principal  maritime  nations,  it  is  evident  that  there  is  a  wide 
divergence  in  the  regiilations  governing  ownership  and  registry, 

1  The  present  law  of  Germany  relating  to  registry  of  vessels  is  contained 
in  the  Ship  Registry  Act  of  June  22,  1899,  which  took  effect  on  January  1, 
1900.     Spec.  Agents'  Series,  No.   114,  pg.   12. 

The  German  Law  of  October  21,  1915,  forbids  the  transference,  in 
whole  or  in  part,  of  the  ownership  in  merchant  vessels  that  are  already 
built  or  in  the  course  of  construction,  to  persons  who  are  not  German  sub- 
jects. Provision  is  made  for  severe  punishments  for  the  contravention  or 
an  attempted  contravention  of  this  statute,  even  if  committed  by  Germans 
domiciled  abroad.     Consular  Reports,  No.  271   (1915),  pg.  694. 


LIMITATIONS    ON    FREEDOM    OF    THE;   SEAS  147 

in  some  degree  comparable  to  the  disparity  of  the  various  state 
statutes  regulating  the  establishment  and  regulation  of  corpora- 
tions throughout  the  United  States.  In  a  similar  manner,  ad- 
vantage may  be  taken  of  the  more  liberal  registration  laws 
should  a  belligerent  state,  whose  merchant  vessels  could  not  set 
forth  on  the  high  seas  because  of  predominant  hostile  sea- 
power,  contemplate  the  circumvention  of  this  inhibition  through 
the  acquisition  of  partial  or  dominant  corporate  ownership  in 
vessels  under  neutral  registry.  If  a  belligerent  state  were  at 
liberty  to  continue  maritime  enterprise  by  seeking  neutral 
corporate  registry,  while  vessels  of  its  own  registry  were  sub- 
ject to  seizure  by  a  superior  enemy  force  holding  command  of 
the  seas,  the  consequent  limitation  on  sea-power  would  arouse 
the  chief  maritime  states  to  vigorous  opposition.  If,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  exercise  of  sea-power  is  accorded  paramount 
consideration,  permitting  inquiry  into  the  nationality  of  the 
shareholders  comprising  the  neutral  corporation,  and  allowing 
condemnation  of  the  vessel,  with  compensation  to  the  neutral 
shareholders,  whenever  enemy  subjects  are  discovered  to  be 
owning  stock  in  the  neutral  corporation,  then  the  limitation 
upon  neutral  shipping  would  become  unendurable,  since  all 
neutral  vessels  of  corporate  ownership,  particularly  those  ac- 
corded registry  in  maritime  states  having  notoriously  liberal 
regulations,  would  be  subjected  to  suspicion,  detention  and  ex- 
amination, with  consequent  condemnation  wherever  the  exist- 
ence of  enemy  shareholders  could  be  established. 

The  most  facile  means  of  composing  interests  so  diametrically 
at  variance  would  appear  to  be  the  general  adoption  by  all 
maritime  states  of  more  exacting  laws  governing  the  grant  of 
national  registry,  similar  in  general  purpose  to  the  laws  of 
Germany  and  ISTorway. 

During  the  session  of  the  American  Institute  of  International 
Law  at  Havana,  Cuba,  January  22,  1917,  certain  radical  mea- 
sures were  proposed,  as  an  integral  part  of  a  suggested  Code  of 
Maritime  Neutrality,  in  the  endeavor  to  determine  some  method 
of  securing  neutral  rights  and  the  freedom  of  commerce  in 


148  INTERNATIONAL    WATERWAYS 

time  of  war.  Chapter  III  of  the  Code,  entitled  "  Freedom 
of  Commerce  in  Time  of  War  "  provided :  Art.  7 :  "  The 
commercial  blockade,  both  of  the  belligerent  ports  and  the  mari- 
time zones  along  belligerent  coasts,  is  formally  forbidden,  no 
matter  what  the  means  by  which  the  blockade  is  to  be  effected." 

Art.  8 :  "  Private  property  in  the  open  sea  is  inviolable. 
Belligerent  and  neutral  merchant  vessels  may  in  no  case  be 
confiscated,  nor  sunk,  under  any  pretext  whatever.  If  carry- 
ing contraband,  this  may  be  confiscated  or  destroyed  by  the 
captor." 

Art.  9 :  "  The  right  of  search  is  abolished.  The  local  au- 
thorities of  each  country  shall  vise  the  papers  of  merchant  ves- 
sels leaving  port  for  a  belligerent  port." 

"  Belligerent  vessels  may  not  stop  neutral  merchant  vessels  or 
merchant  vessels  belonging  to  other  belligerents  except  to  de- 
mand examination  of  the  vessel's  papers.  Despite  the  regu- 
larity of  the  said  papers,  they  (belligerent  vessels)  may  pro- 
ceed to  the  search  of  merchant  vessels.  If  shown  that  the  ves- 
sel does  not  carry  contraband,  the  searching  vessel  shall  be 
condemned  to  pay  to  the  vessel  searched  a  fine  to  be  determined 
by  the  conference  of  neutrals;  and  in  case  the  vessel  searched 
carries  contraband,  the  country  whose  authority  viseed  the  false 
passport  shall  be  condemned  to  pay  an  indemnity  to  be  deter- 
mined by  the  said  conference  of  neutrals." 

"  Vessels  not  carrying  duly  viseed  papers  may  be  searched 
conformable  to  present  international  practice  without  the  right 
to  an  indemnity." 

Art.  11 :  "  The  official  or  private  postal  correspondence  of 
neutrals  or  belligerents  found  in  the  open  sea  on  board  a  neutral 
or  enemy  vessel  is  inviolable.  It  may  not  be  seized,  even  under 
the  pretext  of  the  police  right  of  warships  over  merchant  ships 
of  their  own  nationality." 

Considering  the  indefensible  limitations  which  still  exist  in 
isolated  instances  upon  the  freedom  of  the  sea  during  peace, 
and  the  restrictions  imposed  by  the  recognized  laws  of  war, 
together  with  recent  belligerent  practices,   innovations  which 


LIMITATIONS    ON    FREEDOM    OF    THEl    SEAS  149 

may  or  may  not  be  incorporated  ultimately  within  the  law 
of  nations,  necessitated  by  the  changed  conditions  of  maritime 
warfare,  it  is  evident  that  the  absolutely  unrestricted  use  of 
the  seas,  at  all  times,  remains  to  be  established.  The  partial 
restrictions  which  still  endure  in  time  of  peace,  exerting  a  neg- 
ligible limitation  on  the  freedom  of  the  seas,  are  but  a  slight 
handicap  to  the  pursuit  and  extension  of  maritime  enterprise. 
The  onerous  restrictions  occur  during  war. 

The  usage  of  the  sea  is,  in  principle,  free  to  all  maritime 
nations  throughout  the  world,  subject  only  to  such  derogations 
as  arise  from  the  necessary  respect  to  the  equal  rights  of  others, 
or  those  which  are  recognized  by  reason  of  long-established 
usage,  or  the  obligations  of  treaties  or  international  law.  The 
limitations  upon  the  freedom  of  navigation,  endured  by  neu- 
trals during  war,  are  defensible  only  by  general  usage  or  by 
virtue  of  specific  treaty  stipulations.  Though  a  belligerent 
may  secure  command  of  the  sea  there  is  no  assumption,  as 
formerly,  of  the  complete  ownership;  the  sovereignty  of  the 
seas.  Such  pretensions  to  dominion,  maintained  through  an 
extended  period  of  futile  contest,  terminated  in  the  universal 
recognition  of  the  freedom  of  the  seas  at  the  beginning  of  the 
nineteenth  century.  The  appreciation  by  all  nations  of  the  in- 
calculable benefit  to  be  secured  by  the  destruction  of  the  ana- 
chronistic pretensions  which  had  endured  for  three  centuries, 
engendered  an  energetic  co-operation  among  the  principal  Eu- 
ropean maritime  nations  to  extend  still  further  the  opportunity 
for  commercial  intercourse  with  all  the  world  through  the  es- 
tablishment of  a  similar  freedom  of  navigation,  for  commercial 
purposes,  upon  all  the  navigable,  inland  waterways,  traversing 
or  separating  several  states ;  a  liberty  of  commercial  navigation, 
in  peace,  which  approximates  the  freedom  of  the  seas,  and 
which  may  escape  the  restrictions  imposed  by  belligerent  sea- 
power,  because  of  the  concurrent  rights  or  obligations  of  neu- 
trality appertaining  to  the  riverain  states. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE    FEEEDOM    OF    NAVIGATION    ON    INLAND    WATERWAYS 

Since  the  freedom  of  commercial  navigation  on  international, 
inland  waterways  has  been  evolved  from  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciple which  assures  the  common  benefit  of  the  high  seas  to  all 
maritime  nations  without  the  necessity  of  preliminary  treaty, 
it  might  appear  that  the  declaration  of  a  Congress  of  Nations, 
defining  explicitly  the  conditions  warranting  the  international 
use  of  inland  waterways,  would  suffice  for  the  immediate  es- 
tablishment of  the  right  on  all  inland  waters  susceptible  of 
internationalization.  Certain  fundamental  differences  in  the 
character  of  the  respective  rights  forbid  such  procedure. 

The  freedom  of  navigation  on  the  high  seas  arises  from  the 
recognized  inability  of  any  nation  to  acquire  property  beyond 
the  waters  of  the  marginal  sea,  with  the  result  that  claims  to 
sovereigTity  are  untenable.  The  freedom  of  navigation  on  in- 
land waters  exists  by  virtue  of  the  voluntary  modification  by  the 
riverain  states  of  the  fullest  enjoyment  of  their  jurisdictional 
rights,  undeniably  appertaining  to  the  exercise  of  sovereignty 
throughout  the  national  domain.  From  the  moment  a  foreign 
vessel  enters  the  territorial  waters  serious  problems  arise, 
problems  concerned  with  the  public  safety,  health,  and  finance 
of  the  nation.  The  peculiar  conditions  surrounding  the  com- 
mercial navigation  by  foreign  vessels  of  a  particular  inland 
waterway  necessitate  appropriate  recognition  and  adequate  pro- 
tection. As  a  necessary  preliminary,  therefore,  the  interests 
and  security  of  the  riverain  states  must  be  vouchsafed  by  the 
execution  of  treaties  or  other  appropriate  instruments,  sanc- 
tioned by  all  foreign  states  which  seek  to  engage  in  such  in- 
land transportation,  save  in  the  exceptional  instances  when  the- 

150 


NAVIGATION    ON    INLAND    WATERWAYS  151 

participation  by  foreign  vessels  is  provided  for  by  the  municipal 
legislation  of  the  riverain  states.  All  rights  of  property  over 
such  inland  waters  are  retained  by  the  riverain  states,  as  are 
compatible  with  the  stipulated  enjoyment  of  peaceful  commer- 
cial navigation  by  foreign  vessels. 

Obligations  imposed  upon  the  riverain  states  in  obedience  to 
the  principles  of  international  law  must  be  scrupulously  ob- 
served and  this  obedience  may  accord  commercial  opportunities 
to  foreign  vessels  upon  inland  waterways,  impossible  to  secure 
on  the  high  seas.  In  the  present  war  between  the  Entente  and 
the  Central  Powers,  the  dominant  sea-power  of  Great  Britain 
has  driven  enemy  shipping  from  the  high  seas,  yet  on  the  in- 
ternational waterways  of  China,  Teutonic  commercial  naviga- 
tion, protected  by  the  neutrality  of  the  Chinese,  has  enjoyed 
extensive  development  since  the  outbreak  of  the  war.  Wher- 
ever the  riverain  states  remain  neutral,  the  enjoyment  of  inland, 
commercial  navigation  by  vessels  of  a  foreign  power  engaged 
in  war  cannot  be  interrupted,  despite  the  superior  sea-power 
of  the  enemy. 

Objections  are  sometimes  raised  to  the  application  of  the 
principle  of  freedom  of  navigation  on  inland  waterways  because 
of  certain  difficulties  encountered  in  properly  safeguarding  the 
interests  of  the  territorial  sovereign.  Opposition,  based  on 
similar  grounds,  would  exclude  foreign  merchant  vessels  from 
sailing  through  the  marginal  sea;  yet  this  right  of  innocent 
passage  is  clearly  recog-nized. 

Restrictions  in  Former  Periods. —  Until  the  establishment 
of  the  right  of  navigation  on  European  arterial  waterways 
through  the  unequivocal  declaration  of  the  Congress  of  Nations 
at  Vienna,  the  use  of  inland  waters,  even  when  restricted  to 
riverains  exclusively,  suffered  burdensome  limitations,  varying 
in  intensity  with  the  power  of  the  local  sovereignty  to  compel 
observance.  The  situation  during  feudal  times  became  so  un- 
endurable that  extended  commercial  navigation  virtually 
ceased.  In  this  period,  the  rivers  passed  out  of  the  public 
domain  and  came  into  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the  king's 


152  INTERN ATIONAL    WATERWAYS 

vassals,  whose  single  purpose  was  to  exact  the  maximum  profit 
through  the  exploitation  of  commerce,  whether  borne  upon  the 
highways  or  on  the  navigable  rivers,  particularly  throughout 
Central  Europe.  Kivers  assumed  a  private  character  upon  the 
imposition  of  this  prohibition  of  general  enjoyment,  and  navi- 
gation was  burdened  with  excessive  tolls,  rights  of  passage, 
forced  anchorages,  seriously  restricting  the  transit  both  of  trav- 
ellers and  of  merchandise.  Confronted  with  the  abuses  which 
hindered  the  free  navigation  of  waterways  within  the  domain, 
the  imperial  or  royal  power  appeared  helpless  to  afford  adequate 
relief. 

Throughout  the  Middle  Ages  the  Rhine  constituted  the  prin- 
cipal commercial  route  between  the  Orient  and  the  Occident, 
two  main  routes  diverging  at  the  head  of  navigation,  one  con- 
tinuing southward  over  the  Alps  to  the  port  of  Venice,  the  other 
turning  eastward  to  the  navigable  Danube  leading  to  Constan- 
tinople. Along  the  highway  of  the  Rhine  important  commer- 
cial centers,  notably  Strassbourg,  Frankfort,  Mainz,  and  Co- 
logne, enjoyed  exceptional  prosperity,  which  in  some  instances 
was  derived  from  the  heavy  tolls  exacted  from  all  shipping 
under  the  claim  of  forced  anchorages  or  trans-shipments.  With 
the  discovery  of  the  ISTew  World  and  of  the  all-sea  route  to  In- 
dia; fundamental  changes  in  the  commercial  routes  which  de- 
stroyed the  pre-eminence  of  Venice  and  Genoa  and  established 
the  center  of  maritime  enterprise  at  London,  Antwerp,  and 
Amsterdam,  thenceforth;  the  Rhine  retained  its  valuable  com- 
merce. In  the  latter  part  of  the  sixteenth  century,  however, 
exactions  levied  on  the  Rhine  became  so  serious  as  to  threaten 
communication  with  the  sea.  Having  suffered  heavy  losses 
during  the  progress  of  the  war  with  Spain,  the  Dutch  sought 
to  recoup  by  imposing  costly  license  charges  on  navigation  with 
the  Rhine  ports,  which  had  been  formerly  unrestricted  during 
Spanish  dominion.  The  terms  of  the  Peace  of  Westphalia 
(1648),  consummated  the  ruin  of  commercial  navigation  along 
the  Rhine  by  permitting  the  Dutch,  who  were  seeking  com- 
mercial monopoly,  to  levy  onerous  tolls  on  all  cargoes,  and  by 


NAVIGATION    ON    INLAND    WATERWAYS  153 

sanctioning  the  Dutch  claim  to  prohibit  the  passage  of  certain 
important  staples,  as  salt  and  sugar,  if  loaded  on  other  than 
Dutch  vessels.      (Clapp,  "  The  Navigable  Rhine,"  pg.  4.) 

The  navigation  of  the  Scheldt  was  similarly  restricted.  Ar- 
ticle XIV  of  the  Treaty  of  Westphalia,  agreed  upon  by  France, 
Sweden,  and  the  Emperor  of  Germany,  while  recognizing  the 
independence  of  the  United  Provinces,  further  provided  for  the 
closure  of  the  Scheldt  to  the  advantage  of  the  Dutch.  Forth- 
with communication  with  the  Spanish  JSTetherlands,  by  way  of 
the  Scheldt,  was  forbidden  to  all  vessels  except  those  under 
Dutch  registry.  The  cession  of  the  Spanish  ISTetherlands  to 
Austria  by  the  Treaty  of  Utrecht  (1713)  did  not  secure  a  relax- 
ation of  this  burdensome  restriction.  The  United  Provinces 
contended  that  the  channels  through  Dutch  territory  which  ves- 
sels necessarily  followed  in  navigating  the  Scheldt  to  and  from 
the  sea  were  maintained  only  by  constant  industry  and  heavy 
cost,  and  that  consequently  the  Scheldt  channel,  in  this  portion 
of  its  course,  should  be  considered  an  artificial  communication, 
rather  than  a  natural  waterway. 

The  petty  princes  of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire,  who  had  do- 
minion on  the  principal  commercial  waterways,  seized  the  op- 
portunity afforded  by  the  weakened  control  of  their  Emperor, 
resulting  from  the  Peace  of  Westphalia,  to  secure  enhanced 
revenues  by  the  imposition  of  local  traffic  tolls.  The  tolls 
levied  on  the  Rhine  navigation  proved  particularly  remunera- 
tive since  this  river  was  the  chief  commercial  highway  between 
the  North  Sea,  Central  Europe,  and  the  Adriatic.  Formerly 
the  cargoes  of  rich  merchandise  had  been  carried  from  the 
great  entrepot  of  Venice,  but  with  the  development  of  the 
ports  on  the  North  Sea  the  direction  of  the  commerce  was 
reversed. 

In  the  eighteenth  century,  the  charges  levied  by  the  various 
toll  stations  for  passage  between  Bingen  and  Coblenz  amounted 
to  one-third  of  the  cargo's  valuation.  Opposition  appeared  as 
futile  as  it  was  insistent.  Predominant  among  the  jurists  who 
early  recognized  the  unreasonable  character  of  the  arbitrary 


154  INTERNATIONAL    WATERWAYS 

dues  and  regulations,  exacted  by  the  riparians,  was  Grotius. 
In  endeavoring  to  demonstrate  the  injustice  of  the  pretensions 
and  to  secure  the  relaxation  of  the  burdensome  limitations,  he 
declared  that  by  a  qualified  restriction  of  property  rights  ad- 
vantages might  well  accrue  to  others  without  injury  being 
necessarily  suffered  in  consequence  of  this  liberality.  The  prin- 
ciple advocated  by  Grotius  that  "  whatever  land,  rivers,  or  parts 
of  the  sea  have  become  the  property  of  any  people  ought  to  lie 
open  to  passage  by  those  who  have  need  of  it  for  just  cause, 
as  ...  a  desire  to  trade  with  a  nation  not  contiguous  to  them," 
did  not  receive  the  assent  of  European  nations,  in  its  applica- 
tion to  inland  waterways,  until  the  nineteenth  century,  when 
it  was  tardily  recognized  that  arbitrary  exactions,  limiting  the 
freedom  of  arterial  inland  waters,  were  detrimental  to  the 
fundamental  interests  of  all  commercial  nations.  (Grotius, 
"De  jure  belli  et  pacis,"  L,  II,  C.  2,  sec.  13,  14.)  (West- 
lake,  "International  Law,"  Vol.  I,  pg.  146.) 

Liberte,  Egalite,  Fraternite,  so  frequently  proclaimed  dur- 
ing the  French  Revolutionary  period,  found  frequent  oppor- 
tunity for  expression  in  the  many  treaties  involving  territorial 
changes,  particularly  with  reference  to  the  freedom  of  naviga- 
tion on  inland  waters,  necessitated  by  the  succession  of  sover- 
eignties due  to  extensive  military  conquests.  The  treaty  stip- 
ulations conceded  the  liberty  of  navigation  to  the  riverain 
states,  solely,  all  foreign  states  being  denied  participation,  in- 
asmuch as  no  reciprocal,  corresponding  advantages  could  be 
extended. 

The  decree  of  the  French  Convention,  November  16,  1792, 
relating  to  the  freedom  of  navigation  on  the  Scheldt,  marks 
this  stage  in  the  development  of  the  principle  which  was  des- 
tined to  receive  still  more  liberal  expression,  twenty-three  years 
later,  at  the  CongTess  of  ISTations.  The  French  Convention, 
declaring  that  a  nation  cannot  without  injustice  pretend  to  the 
right  of  occupying  the  channel  of  a  river  exclusively  and 
hindering  neighboring  peoples  who  dwell  on  its  upper  waters 
from  enjoying  the  same  advantages,  decreed  that  the  Scheldt 


NAVIGATION    OF    INLAND    WATERWAYS  155 

should  henceforth  be  freely  navigable  by  all  nations  holding 
territory  along  its  navigable  course. 

Linguet  (1736-1794)  had  already  declared  that  since  the 
freedom  of  the  seas  was  accepted  as  a  cardinal  principle  in  the 
law  of  nations  that  arterial  rivers  should  enjoy  a  similar  free- 
dom, not  exclusively  for  the  benefit  of  the  co-riparians,  but  for 
the  equal  participation  of  all  maritime  nations.  ISTot  until  the 
Peace  of  Paris  and  the  Congress  of  Vienna  was  the  universal 
navigation  of  inland  waterways  recognized  as  an  international 
concern,  however.  The  Congress  of  E'ations  at  Vienna,  by 
•assuring  the  freedom  of  navigation  on  arterial  waterways 
through  formal  recognition  of  the  principle  and  explicit  pro- 
vision for  adequate  regulations  to  assure  the  continued  en- 
joyment of  these  exceptional  advantages,  in  conformity  with 
the  fundamental  stipulations  of  the  Treaty  of  Paris,  exhibited 
a  full  appreciation  of  the  more  enlightened  policies  which  were 
destined  to  govern  commercial  and  maritime  relations  during 
the  nineteenth  century.  The  last  pretension  to  sovereignty 
on  the  seas  had  been  voluntarily  abandoned  a  decade  previously. 
The  principle  recognized  by  the  Congress  of  Vienna  assured 
enhanced  opportunity  and  benefit  to  all  commercial  nations  by 
the  assurance  of  extended  facilities  for  transportation  over  the 
waterways  of  the  world.  Forthwith,  all  inland  waterways  sep- 
arating or  traversing  several  states  were  susceptible  of  inter- 
nationalization throughout  their  entire  navigable  course,  sub- 
ject only  to  the  police  power  of  the  riverain  states.  Foreign 
vessels,  engaged  in  commercial  navigation  on  inland  waters, 
thenceforth,  were  assured  rights  equal  to  those  enjoyed  by  the 
vessels  of  riverain  states.-^ 

1  Koch  and  Schoell,  "  Histoire  Abregee  des  Traites  de  Paix,"  Vol.  X, 
pp.  485,  490,  528,  531,  present  an  extended  discussion  of  the  Peace  of 
Paris  of  May  30,  1814;  Martens,  "  Recueil,"  Vol.  XIII,  p.  1,  contains  the 
complete  text. 

Concerning  the  deliberations  of  the  Powers  with  reference  to  the  estab- 
lishment of  universal  freedom  of  navigation  on  arterial,  inland  water- 
ways in  conformity  with  the  Fifth  Article  and  the  second  section  of  the 
Third  Secret  Article  of  the  Treaty  of  Paris,  consult  Koch  and  Schoell, 
"Histoire  Abregee,"  Vol.  XI,  pp.  14,  247,  340,  394. 


156  INTERN ATIOISTAL    WATEEWAYS 

1^0  specific  limitation  was  placed  on  the  navigable  extent 
of  any  river,  since  the  actual  ability  to  navigate  determines  the 
head  of  navigation  in  each  instance.  Consequently,  improve- 
ments affecting  the  navigable,  natural  channel ;  dredging,  blast- 
ing, or  other  form  of  rectification ;  materially  affect  the  interests 
of  foreign  vessels.  Improvements  in  the  natural  channel  of 
a  river,  already  available  for  international  navigation,  may  per- 
mit the  employment  of  larger  vessels  or  the  extension  of  navi- 
gation further  upstream,  while  improvements  which  extend  the 
navigable  course  of  a  river,  wholly  within  the  jurisdiction  of 
one  state,  into  the  domain  of  an  adjacent  state,  will  warrant 
the  establishment  of  international  rights,  notwithstanding  the 
indisputable  national  character  of  the  river  before  the  improve- 
ments were  completed.  The  claim  of  international  rights  on 
an  inland  waterway  may  arise  or  lapse  at  any  time.  Kectifi- 
cations  of  the  frontiers  and  other  extensions  or  limitations  to 
the  territorial  domain  of  states  adjacent  to  a  navigable  river, 
as  well  as  substantial  improvements  of  the  navigable  channel 
itself,  vitally  affect  the  international  character  of  all  waterways, 
as  the  sovereignty  over  inland  waters  is  appurtenant  to  the  ter- 
restrial sovereignity,  and,  consequently,  the  determination  of  the 
national  or  international  character  of  an  inland  waterway  re- 
mains, perennially,  a  potential  problem. 

The  Influence  of  Modern  Invention. —  Foreign  nations 
would  secure  negligible  benefit  from  the  exercise  of  this  right 
in  the  absence  of  mechanical  power  for  the  propulsion  of  ves- 
sels, while  the  riverain  states  would  necessarily  be  limited  to 
that  commerce  which  could  be  floated  do^vnstream  or  labori- 
ously brought  inland  by  the  tedious  process  of  towing.  Fol- 
lowing the  discovery  of  the  'New  World  an  extensive  maritime 
trade  developed  confined  almost  wholly  to  the  sea-coasts.  In- 
land navigation  continued  relatively  unimportant  until  the 
achievement  of  Fulton,  benefiting  inland  and  maritime  navi- 
gation alike.  The  invention  of  the  steamship  permitted  the 
consignment  of  cargoes  directly  into  the  interior  of  vast  con- 
tinents   from   foreign    sea-ports.     The   navigation    of    inland 


NAVIGATION    OF    INLAND    WATERWAYS  157 

waterways  no  longer  necessitated  burdensome  charges  and  in- 
definite delays.  Before  the  advent  of  steam  navigation  on  the 
Mississippi,  boatmen  who  had  floated  heavily  laden  barges 
downstream  to  the  markets  at  Baton  Kouge  and  New  Orleans 
seldom  ventured  on  the  arduous  return  voyage,  preferring  to 
accept  a  nominal  price  for  the  barges  when  discharged  or  to 
abandon  them  altogether  and  to  journey  homeward  overland. 
Steam  vessels  converted  the  Mississippi  and  its  numerous  trib- 
utaries into  broad  highways  through  the  unsettled  wilderness, 
regardless  of  the  direction  of  the  current,  carrying  cargoes  along 
the  main  river  between  the  Falls  of  Saint  Anthony  and  the  Gulf 
and  on  all  the  navigable  tributaries,  eastward  as  far  as  the 
AUeghanies,  westward  up  the  great  Missouri  Kiver  to  the  foot 
of  the  Rocky  Mountains. 

Mechanical  Appliances  Facilitating  Navigation. —  The 
modern  invention  of  various  mechanical  appliances  to  facili- 
tate navigation;  dredging  machinery,  hydro-electric  locks,  the 
screw-propellor,  travelling  cranes  and  hoists  for  the  expeditious 
trans-shipment  of  cargoes;  has  disclosed  further  and  unfore- 
seen opportunities  for  inland  navigation.  With  appropriate 
dredging  machinery  waterways  may  be  improved  at  relatively 
small  cost,  permitting  the  employment  of  larger  vessels  for 
inland  transit  and  the  enjoyment  of  inexpensive  water  trans- 
portation to  remote  industrial  districts.  Vessels  equipped  with 
the  screw  propeller  may  be  employed  advantageously  either 
on  the  high  seas  or  for  inland  navigation.  Cargoes  may  be  em- 
barked at  the  sea-ports  or  inland  ports  of  one  country  and 
transported  by  inland  waterways  and  the  high  seas  to  interior 
points  on  distant  continents  without  the  necessity  of  trans- 
shipment. A  ship  may  take  cargo  at  ]^ew  York,  Chicago, 
Montreal,  or  Duluth  and  may  voyage  continuously  until  arrival 
at  the  proposed  destination,  whether  three  thousand  miles  up 
the  Amazon  at  the  port  of  Iquitos,  Peru;  or  Matadi  on  the 
Congo;  or  Asuncion,  Paraguay,  more  than  a  thousand  miles 
inland  on  the  Rio  de  la  Plata;  or  Hankow  on  the  Yang-tse- 
kiang,  six  hundred  miles  from  the  sea;  or  in  Europe  at  one 


I5»  INTERNATIONAL    WATERWAYS 

of  the  many  river  ports  of  the  Danube;  and,  in  time  of  peace, 
no  nation  may  in  any  degree  prohibit  this  right  of  unrestricted 
navigation  on  inland  waterways. 

The  advantages  accorded  by  the  right  to  navigate  inland,  in- 
ternational waterways,  permitting  the  pursuance  of  a  contin- 
uous voyage  from  the  port  of  embarkation  to  that  of  destination, 
are  apparent  even  in  comparatively  shallow  waters,  ill-adapted 
for  "  ocean-inland  "  navigation.  The  Rhine  can  accommodate 
vessels  under  six  feet  draught  for  a  distance  of  three  hundred 
and  fifty  miles  from  the  IN'orth  Sea.  In  consequence  of  this 
physical  limitation  most  commodities  are  more  cheaply  carried 
in  barges.  ^Nevertheless,  a  serviceable  type  of  steamer  has 
developed,  capable  of  plying  between  the  various  river  ports 
and  the  sea-ports  of  the  Azores,  Portugal,  Spain,  and  of  the 
countries  bordering  on  the  Xorth  Sea  and  the  Mediterranean. 
Varying  in  tonnage  from  342-1770  tons,  these  skillfully  de- 
signed vessels  carry  an  extensive  commerce  from  inland  ports 
without  necessitating  the  transference  of  cargo.  (Clapp,  "  The 
l^avigable  Rhine,"  pg.  46.)  This  service  was  instituted  in 
1888  with  the  formation  of  the  "  Rhine  and  Sea  ISTavigation 
Company  "  at  Cologne,  and  the  success  attending  this  innova- 
tion rapidly  increased  the  number  of  vessels  engaged.  Since 
1903,  the  "  Rhine-Sea  "  traffic  has  declined  as  a  result  of  the 
shallow  channel  between  Cologne  and  Rotterdam,  compelling 
the  lighterage  of  a  large  share  of  cargo  before  the  vessel  may 
proceed  upstream,  and  thus  forfeiting  the  chief  advantage  of 
this  service,  through  transportation.  The  "  Rhine-Sea  "  traf- 
fic in  1902  constituted  one  twenty-eighth  of  the  total  river 
shipping  passing  the  Dutch-German  border,  but  by  1907  this 
traffic  had  diminished  until  it  was  but  one  sixty-sixth  of  the 
total.      (Clapp,  "  The  Navigable  Rhine,"  pg.  61,  76. )i 

1  According  to  the  returns  from  Lobith  at  the  Dutch  frontier,  the 
"  Rhine-Sea "  traffic  in  1907  comprised  347,000  tons.  Cologne  received 
the  largest  share;  74,000  tons;  while  the  German  harbors  on  the  North 
Sea  and  the  Baltic  participated  in  73  per  cent,  or  250,000  tons,  Hamburg 
alone  enjoying  33  per  cent.  The  traffic  upstream,  consisting  of  sugar, 
oils  and  fats,  flour,  flax,  barley,  coffee,  cement,  lumber,  etc.,  amounted  to 


NAVIGATION    ON    INLAND    WATERWAYS  159 

Even  under  the  most  favorable  circumstances  these  vessels 
would  operate  both  at  sea  and  on  the  Rhine  at  some  disad- 
vantage in  comparison  with  the  vessels  designed  especially  for 
maritime  or  inland  service,  a  fact  due  principally  to  the 
shallowness  of  the  Rhine.  Elsewhere,  on  larger  rivers  such 
as  the  Amazon,  the  Columbia,  and  the  Rio  de  la  Plata,  sea-going 
vessels  suffer  no  serious  limitation  when  employed  in  inland 
navigation. 

Modem  machinery,  designed  for  the  expeditious  trans-ship- 
ment of  freight,  enables  commerce  to  utilize  the  recognized  ad- 
vantages of  water-transportation  where  continuous  voyages  are 
impracticable  or  wholly  impossible.  Since  waterways  afford 
the  least  expensive  and  most  commodious  of  all  means  of  trans- 
port, it  is  important  to  avoid  all  unnecessary  carriage  over- 
land. With  modern  loading  machinery  the  opportunity  for 
utilizing  waterways  is  greatly  improved,  since  cargoes  may  be 
trans-shipped  expeditiously  from  ocean  vessels  to  river  boats, 
reaching  final  destination,  when  necessary,  by  subsequent  trans- 
ference from  inland  navigation  to  railroad  or  other  means  of 
over-land  transit.  In  Germany,  where  particular  importance 
is  attached  to  the  proper  co-relation  of  railway  and  waterway 
transport,  inasmuch  as  every  consumer  is  deemed  to  be  vitally 
interested  in  reducing  the  final  cost  of  commodities  through 
the  most  efficient  method  of  transportation,  it  has  been  deter- 
mined that  water  transit  is  cheaper  than  rail  wherever  the  des- 
tination is  at  least  twenty-five  miles  distant,  both  terminals 
being  situated  on  a  first  class  waterway.  If  one  terminal  is  at 
some  distance  from  navigable  waters,  compelling  the  trans- 
shipment of  the  freight  enroute,  water  carriage  may  still  be  used 
at  a  saving,  if  the  total  distance  is  not  less  than  forty-five  miles. 
Where  both  terminals  are  off  the  main,  navigable  waterway, 
necessitating  two  transfers,  from  rail  to  boat  and  from  boat  to 
rail,  water  transportation  will  not  be  advantageous  unless  the 

168,321  tons;  while  downstream  174,090  tons  were  carried,  comprising 
brick,  clay,  manufactured  iron,  metals,  soda,  wine,  etc.  Clapp,  "  The 
Navigable  Rhine,"  pg.  77. 


160  INTERNATIONAL    WATERWAYS 

distance  is  at  least  one  hundred  miles.  (Clapp,  "  The  Navi- 
gable Rhine,"  pg.  28 ;  quoting  Peters,  "  Schiffartsabgaben," 
Leipzig,  1908.)  This  comparison  which  contemplates  the  use 
of  the  most  efficient  machinery  for  trans-shipment  demonstrates 
the  great  importance  of  international  rights  of  navigation  on 
inland  waterways,  even  in  the  event  that  such  waters  are  in- 
sufficient to  accommodate  ocean-going  vessels.  Where  shallow 
water  precludes  the  employment  of  vessels  designed  for  tlie  deep 
sea,  a  supplementary  service  of  river  boats  may  be  established 
and  the  cargoes  transferred  without  prohibitive  delay  or  ex- 
pense. The  comparison  is  also  important  in  disclosing  the  in- 
herent advantages  of  water  transportation  in  relation  to  the 
most  facile  means  employed  on  land:  railroad  carriage.  The 
indispensable  services  of  inland  waterways  are  recognized  even 
in  such  countries  as  Belgium  where  railroad  development  has 
been  most  extensive.  The  Belgian  Government,  though  own- 
ing both  waterways  and  railways,  was  compelled  to  lower  the 
railroad  freight  charges  because  of  the  severe  competition  of 
water  transportation.  In  a  similar  manner,  the  Rhine  com- 
petes seriously  with  the  railways  and  compels  the  maintenance 
of  low  rates.  Every  facility  is  afforded  for  the  trans-shipment 
of  freight  from  water  to  rail  to  secure  the  most  inexpensive 
transportation.  In  Trance,  as  in  America,  this  co-operative 
spirit  does  not  exist  in  any  comparable  degree.  The  privately- 
owned,  French  railways  compete  severely  with  the  extensive 
system  of  waterways  and  usually  offer  no  adequate  facilities 
for  the  transference  of  cargoes.  (Clapp,  "  The  l^avigable 
Rhine,"  pg.  68.) 

In  the  United  States  there  is  apparent  a  more  pronounced 
hostility  between  the  railroads  and  the  inland  shipping  inter- 
ests, reflected  in  the  establishment  by  the  railways  of  particu- 
larly low  rates  wherever  water  competition  is  encountered; 
the  railroads  thus  securing  the  bulk  of  the  traffic  and  recoup- 
ing whatever  losses  are  incurred  by  a  relative  increase  in  the 
rates  on  freight  which  is  unaffected  by  water  competition. 
This  policy  received  judicial  sanction  in  1888,  one  year  after 


NAVIGATIOISr    OF    INLAND    WATERWAYS  161 

the  passage  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Act,  by  the  declaration 
that  the  "  long  and  short  haul "  clause  of  the  Act  was  inopera- 
tive when  water  competition  was  present.  Despite  the  facil- 
ities for  water  transportation  in  the  United  States,  the  dis- 
criminatory railroad  rates  and  the  difficulties  attending  the  col- 
lection and  distribution  of  freight  for  inland  water  transit 
have  unfortunately  retarded  the  development  of  this  national, 
commercial  asset,  although  on  the  Great  Lakes  peculiar  condi- 
tions of  navigation  have  developed  a  noteworthy  and  extensive 
commerce.  The  assertion  that  elsewhere  the  inadequacy  of  the 
navigable  channels  restricts  the  development  of  transportation 
over  American  waterways  is  scarcely  candid.  The  Mississippi 
has  a  depth  of  nine  feet  from  the  Gulf  to  Cairo,  Illinois,  a 
distance  of  eight  hundred  miles;  of  eight  feet  from  Cairo  to 
Saint  Louis  which  is  two  hundred  miles  further  upstream ;  and 
the  entire  Mississippi  system  offers  two  thousand  five  hundred 
miles  of  six-foot  navigation;  the  identical  depth  which  on  the 
Ehine  is  available  for  only  three  hundred  and  fifty  miles  from 
the  sea,  yet  carries  an  enormous  commerce.  (Clapp,  "  The 
Navigable  Ehine,"  pg.  122.) 

The  conditions  prevailing  in  France,  the  United  States,  and 
in  certain  other  countries  where  vast  railroad  interests  have 
developed,  demanding  protection  until  some  method  of  co-ordi- 
nating the  conflicting  interests  of  water  and  rail  shall  be  de- 
vised are  mentioned  as  exceptional.  The  artificial  limitations 
which  accord  railroad  transportation  an  apparent  superiority 
are  abnormal.  The  inherent  advantages  of  waterways  over 
railways  for  freight  carriage  are  readily  apparent  wherever 
there  is  opportunity  for  an  equitable  comparison  of  the  service 
rendered.  The  development  of  railroad  transportation  during 
the  latter  part  of  the  nineteenth  century,  astounding  as  it  has 
been,  when  compared  with  the  volume  of  traffic  borne  by  inland 
waterways  compels  the  recognition  of  the  superiority  of  water 
transit  whenever  it  is  available. 

In  considering  the  practical  effect  of  the  adoption  by  the 
Congress  of  Vienna  of  the  enlightened  principle  which  accords 


162  INTERNATIONAL    WATERWAYS 

all  nations  the  right  to  navigate  as  international  waterways  in- 
terior seas,  lakes,  rivers,  and  supplementary  canals  which  are 
navigable  through  several  states  it  is  essential  to  recognize 
that  the  trade  of  the  world  would  have  secured  insignificant 
benefit,  in  comparison  with  the  actual  development,  had  not  the 
introduction  of  steam  navigation  been  almost  coeval  with  the 
Congress.  Without  the  opportunity  for  an  extensive  exercise 
of  the  right  afforded  by  mechanical  invention,  the  participation 
of  foreign  powers  in  the  navigation  of  international,  inland 
waterways  would  have  remained  necessarily  negligible.  The 
progressive  extension  and  development  of  this  wholly  new  right 
in  connection  with  the  increasing  employment  of  improved 
mechanical  appliances  has  conferred  an  inestimable  benefit  on 
the  civilized  world.  Co-riverains  and  foreign  maritime  states 
have  profited  alike.  In  sparsely  settled  countries,  where  the 
construction  of  railroads  has  awaited  more  favorable  conditions, 
an  international  river  may  afford  the  only  means  of  access  be- 
tween the  interior  and  the  commercial  world.  A  state,  situated 
on  the  lower  course  of  an  arterial  river,  might  endeavor  to 
forbid  passage  through  its  riverain,  territorial  waters  to  for- 
eign, commercial  vessels  seeking  trade  with  isolated  states  in 
the  interior.  By  virtue  of  the  embodiment  of  the  principle  of 
international  navigation  on  inland  waterways  in  the  public  law 
of  Europe  by  the  Act  of  the  Congress  of  Nations  and  the  con- 
sistent employment  of  the  right  throughout  the  world  during 
the  nineteenth  century  such  a  restrictive  exercise  of  property 
rights  could  not  long  endure.  The  world-wide  practice  of 
nations  contributes  strength  and  prestige  to  the  principle.  In 
both  South  America  and  Africa,  countries  almost  wholly  de- 
pendent upon  lakes  and  rivers  for  inland  communication,  par- 
ticular importance  has  attached  to  the  establishment  of  inter- 
national waterways.  In  South  America  the  free  navigation  of 
inland  waters  becomes  a  virtual  necessity  since  lofty  mountain 
ranges  and  extensive  virgin  forests  have  retarded  railroad  build- 
ing because  of  the  enormous  expense  entailed  and  the  dubious 
prospect  for  an  adequate  return  on  the  investment. 


NAVIGATION    OF   INLAND   WATERWAYS  163< 

The  mighty  river  systems  of  South  America  compensate,  af- 
fording access  thousands  of  miles  inland.  Since  the  principal 
rivers  have  become  internationalized,  the  vessels  of  all  mari- 
time nations  may  freely  engage  in  commerce  with  distant  in- 
terior points.  The  Amazon  is  the  highway  leading  to  Bolivia, 
Peru,  Ecuador,  Colombia,  Venezuela,  and  to  the  valuable  rub- 
ber producing  districts  of  Brazil.  The  Orinoco  also  affords 
access  to  Central  Colombia  and  Venezuela.  The  Eio  de  la 
Plata,  the  great  southern  highway,  formed  by  the  confluence 
of  the  Paraguay  and  Parana  rivers,  communicates  with  Ar- 
gentina, Bolivia,  Brazil,  Paraguay,  and  Uruguay  and  is  navi- 
gable for  ocean  vessels  to  Corumba,  Brazil,  during  the  season 
of  high  water.  ^ 

In  Europe,  the  Danube,  opened  freely  to  the  navigation  of 
all  nations  by  the  Treaty  of  Paris  (1856),  constitutes  the 
chief  commercial  highway,  as  was  also  true  during  the  Middle 
Ages,  between  Central  Europe  and  the  Near  East.  The  ves- 
sels of  many  nations :  Austria,  Great  Britain,  Greece,  Hungary, 
Roumania,  Russia,  Servia,  engaged  in  traffic  on  this  river  and 
its  principal  tributaries  before  the  commencement  of  the  Eu- 
ropean War  of  1914.2 

1  In  1913,  1,372  vessels;  634  being  Argentine;  with  an  aggregate  ton- 
nage of  294,887  tons  entered  the  port  of  Asuncion,  Paraguay.  1,289 
vessels  departed  from  the  port  of  Asuncion,  aggregating  233,657  tons. 
Vessels  engaged  in  the  river  traffic  between  Asuncion  and  river  ports 
further  upstream  entered  the  port  of  Asuncion  to  the  number  of  1,078  with 
a  tonnage  of  59,830;  while  2,061  vessels  cleared  from  Asuncion  with  a 
total  tonnage  of  80,191;  these  vessels  for  the  most  part  being  engaged  in 
regular  routes.     Stateman's  Yearbook,  1915,  pg.   1206. 

2  Vessels  entering  and  leaving  the  Danubian  ports  of  Roumania : 
British  vessels;  1912;  247  with  an  aggregate  tonnage  of  548,217;  1913; 

278  vessels  aggregating  669,589  tons;  while  in  1914  the  number  was  re- 
duced to  187  with  a  tonnage  of  461,810,  owing  to  the  closure  of  the  Bos- 
phorus  and  of  the  upstream  ports.  In  this  same  period  there  were  299 
Greek  vessels  aggregating  558,666  tons  in  1912;  112  with  24,729  tons,  a 
decrease  caused  by  the  war  in  the  Balkans,  in  1913;  and  157  with  333,030 
tons  in  1914.  Austro-Hungarian  vessels  numbered  143  in  1912;  158  in 
1913;  and  82  in  1914;  having  respectively  310,974,  313,219,  and  161,677 
tons.  The  vessels  of  all  other  nations  numbered  1,008  in  1912;  902  in 
1913;  and  718  in  1914;  aggregating  for  the  respective  years  1,788,156; 
1,737,300;  and  1,356,090  tons.  Stateman's  Yearbook,  1915,  pgs.  1262, 
1331. 


164  INTEENATIONAL  WATERWAYS 

Political  Advantages  Secured  by  Inland  States. —  But 
the  benefit  accruing  from  endowing  an  arterial  waterway  with 
freedom  of  navigation  is  not  confined  to  the  commercial  ad- 
vantages secured  by  foreign  and  riverain  states  alike.  Cer- 
tain important  political  advantages  are  immediately  acquired 
by  an  inland  state  which  hitherto  has  been  denied  access  to  the 
open  sea.  Prior  to  the  internationalization  of  the  river,  not 
only  would  such  a  state  be  denied  direct  communication  with 
the  world  as  the  result  of  its  disadvantageous,  geographic  posi- 
tion, but  it  could  not  claim  to  have  a  mercantile  flag  entitled 
to  international  respect  on  the  high  seas.  A  state  cannot  ac- 
cept the  real  authority  and  responsibility,  which  the  grant  of 
registry  implies,  according  with  it  the  right  to  fly  the  national 
flag,  unless  the  ship  belongs  to  a  port  of  the  state,  accessible 
from  the  sea,  where,  on  the  return  of  the  vessel,  the  ofiicers, 
crew,  or  passengers  may  be  punished  for  any  offences  committed 
at  sea.      (Westlake,  "International  Law,"  I,  1G9.) 

An  inland  state,  however,  can  demand  respect  for  its  flag  on 
vessels  navigating  interior  lakes  or  seas  lying  between  two  or 
more  states.  On  the  international  lakes,  Geneva  and  Con- 
stance, lying  between  Switzerland  and  the  neighboring  states, 
the  vessels  engaged  in  navigation  display  the  flags  of  their 
respective  nationalities:  Austrian,  French,  German,  Italian,  or 
Swiss.  The  flag  of  Switzerland  is  accorded  implicit  respect 
on  these  waters,  despite  the  fact  that  on  the  high  seas  it  would 
not  be  entitled  to  recognition.  The  difficulties  encountered 
by  the  Swiss  in  undertaking  maritime  enterprise  are  aggra- 
vated by  the  inability  of  the  national  flag  to  afford  Swiss-owned 
vessels  protection,  necessitating  the  adoption,  as  a  foster-flag, 
the  emblem  of  some  maritime  state  whose  laws  permit  the  use 
of  the  national  registry  and  the  national  flag  by  foreign-owned 
vessels.  An  interesting  commentary  on  the  position  of  vessels 
thus  sheltering  under  the  protection  of  a  benign  state  occurred 
during  the  Franco-German  War.  When  the  French  conseil  d'e- 
tat considered  the  case  of  the  Swiss-owned  vessel,  Palme,  it 
ordered  restitution,  although  it  was  captured  while  flying  the 


NAVIGATION    ON    INLAND    WATERWAYS  165 

N'orth-German  flag.  The  fact  that  Switzerland  forbids  citi- 
zens to  employ  the  Swiss  flag  for  maritime  enterprise  was 
fundamental  in  securing  the  release  of  the  vessel.  (Westlake, 
"International  Law,"  II,  170.) 

This  limitation  on  Swiss  enterprise  over  seas  will  terminate 
with  the  completion  of  the  extensive  improvements  undertaken 
on  the  upper  course  of  the  Rhine.  The  deepening  of  the  nav- 
igable channel  and  the  construction  of  locks  to  surmount  the 
Falls  of  Schaffhausen  will  afford  vessels  access  from  the  sea 
to  Lake  Constance.  The  river  Rhine,  established  as  an  inter- 
national waterway  by  the  express  terms  of  the  Congress  of  Vi- 
enna, will  become  the  principal  highway  for  Swiss  commerce. 
The  right  of  Switzerland  to  demand  respect  for  the  national 
flag  at  sea  will  accrue  whenever  it  becomes  physically  possible, 
through  the  adequate  improvement  of  the  Rhine  channel,  for  a 
Swiss  vessel  to  undertake  a  voyage  upon  the  high  seas  from  a 
river  port  within  Switzerland  and  to  return  once  more  to  the 
port  of  departure. 

Elsewhere  the  acquisition  of  rights  to  a  maritime  flag  has 
followed  the  internationalization  of  a  river.  Before  Bulgaria 
secured  access  to  the  ^gean  Sea,  respect  was  rendered  its  mer- 
chant flag,  since  the  Bulgarian  river-ports  on  the  international 
Danube  fulfilled  the  stipulated  requirements  for  recognition. 
Servia,  still  further  upstream,  likewise  enjoys  the  right  of  a 
mercantile  flag  entitled  to  international  respect,  and  sea-going 
vessels  of  various  nations  trade  with  Servian  ports.  In  South 
America,  the  internationalization  of  the  Parana  and  Paraguay 
rivers  renders  similar  advantages  to  Bolivia  and  Paraguay; 
countries  lying  far  inland  and  dependent  upon  the  freedom  of 
navigation  over  these  mighty  waterways  for  the  continued 
enjoyment  of  maritime  commerce  and  industry. 

Bulgaria,  Bolivia,  Paraguay,  and  Servia  have  secured  the 
commercial  advantages  of  maritime  states,  while  located  at 
great  distance  from  the  sea-coast.  The  internationalization  of 
a  river,  navigable  from  the  sea,  has  the  practical  effect  of  en- 
dowing all  inland  states  situated  on  its  navigable  course  with 


166  INTEENATIOTirAI.    WATERWAYS 

many  of  the  rights,  privileges,  and  obligations  appertaining  to 
nations  located  on  the  open  sea.  River-ports  of  the  inland 
states  virtually  become  sea-ports,  and  the  inland  states,  ac- 
cordingly, enjoy  recognition  of  the  national  flag  at  sea. 

Similar  rights  may  accrue  to  an  interior  state,  like  Switzer- 
land, situated  on  a  river,  capable  of  sufficient  rectifi.cation  and 
improvement  to  afford  access  to  the  sea,  but  such  rights  con- 
tinue dormant  until  through  navigation  has  been  accomplished 
in  fact.  An  inland  state  situated  on  a  river  Avhich  is  incap- 
able of  adequate  improvement  to  secure  commercial  naviga- 
tion to  and  from  the  sea ;  and  Afghanistan  is  the  only  exist- 
ing instance  of  this  unfortunate  position;  cannot  contemplate 
the  acquisition  of  rights  peculiar  to  maritime  states  while  the 
present  territorial  boundaries  continue. 

Throughout  the  world  the  progressive  exercise  of  the  prin- 
ciple has  dedicated  many  thousand  miles  of  inland  waterways 
to  the  unrestricted  commercial  use  of  nations,  maritime  and 
inland  alike.  The  freedom  of  navigation  on  inland  waterways 
is  not  confined  to  the  great  continents,  but  has  extended  to 
the  islands  of  the  sea.  Great  Britain  and  the  I!«I'etherlands  by 
the  treaty  of  May  16,  1895,  agreed  to  the  unrestricted  com- 
mercial navigation  of  the  Fly  River  in  liew  Guinea;  having 
already  provided  for  a  similar  liberty  on  several  rivers  in 
Borneo  by  the  convention  of  June  20,  1891. 

The  civilization  which  developed  at  an  early  period  in  the 
Mediterranean  countries  was  confined  necessarily  to  the  sea- 
coasts  because  of  the  inadequate  facilities  for  continued  inter- 
communication with  distant  interior  regions.  The  civilization 
which  the  modern  European  nations  have  carried  to  the  re- 
motest parts  of  the  world  has  depended  upon  the  facility  of 
communication  and  transportation.  The  science  of  naviga- 
tion, ^assisted  by  the  more  recent  mechanical  inventions,  has 
carried  on  this  dissemination  in  every  region  of  the  Seven 
Seas  and  throughout  the  inland  waterways  of  vast  continents. 
"No  interior  point,  however  far  removed  from  the  sea-board, 
may   be   considered   isolated,    if   situated   upon   a    navigable 


NAVIGATION    ON    INLAND    WATERWAYS  167 

affluent  of  the  ocean,  since  the  enlightened  principle  contrib- 
uted by  the  Congress  of  Vienna  to  the  law  of  nations  assures 
direct  and  unrestricted  communication  with  the  wide  regions 
of  the  earth.  The  right  of  navigating  arterial,  inland  water- 
ways is  intimately  affiliated  with  the  freedom  of  the  seas. 

The  emancipation  of  the  seas  indicated  a  disposition  among 
maritime  nations  to  banish  the  destructive  policies  obtaining 
since  the  Dark  Ages  which  imposed  needless  burdens  on  the 
sea-trade  of  the  world  and  evidenced  a  desire  developing  among 
nations  to  participate  more  equitably  in  the  benefits  of  mar- 
itime enterprise.  With  Great  Britain's  abandonment  of 
sovereignty  over  the  Four  Seas  (1806),  the  maritime  freedom 
became  established;  extending  to  all  nations  the  right  to  nav- 
igate or  fish  or  otherwise  employ  the  sea  without  restraint. 
Appreciating  the  advantages  derived  from  an  equality  of  par- 
ticipation in  the  benefits  of  the  sea,  and  believing  that  under 
certain  circumstances  the  unrestricted  commercial  navigation 
of  inland  waters,  navigable  from  the  sea,  would  prove  similarly 
beneficial  to  the  maritime  enterprise  of  all  countries,  the  Con- 
gress of  ISTations  incorporated  the  principle  in  the  Public  Law 
of  Europe.  Thenceforth,  no  nation  could  with  impunity  im- 
pose restrictions  on  commercial  navigation  neither  on  the  high 
seas  nor  on  the  great,  arterial  waterways  traversing  or  separat- 
ing the  domains  of  several  states. 

The  sea  has  ever  been  the  highway  of  international  com- 
merce and  intercommunication,  for  the  ocean  carrying  trade 
is  chiefly  between  nations,  not  between  different  portions  of 
the  same  nation,  save  only  in  the  instance  of  insular  states. 
"  More  than  anything  else,"  says  Kirkoff,  "  sea-trade,  together 
with  every  sort  of  activity  demanding  transmarine  effort, 
whether  it  be  vast  industrial  enterprises,  technical  achievements 
on  the  sea,  or  colonization,  establishes  an  intimate  connection 
between  a  nation  and  the  great  world.  ...  It  welds  together 
in  indissoluble  union  the  interior  of  the  state  with  its  coast 
provinces,  the  only  paths  along  which  lively  exchange  is  effected 
with  foreign  regions."      (Kirchoff,  "  The  Sea  in  the  Life  of 


168  INTEENATIONAIi   WATERWAYS 

Nations,"  in  the  Annual  Keport  of  the  Smithsonian  Institution, 
1900-1901,  pg.  399.)  Every  state,  realizing  the  inestimable 
benefit  of  the  sea,  seeks  to  extend  its  domain  to  the  littoral. 
Where  adverse  circumstances  thwart  the  national  ambition  of 
acquiring  maritime  territory,  an  alternative  remains  in  the 
undeveloped  possibilities  of  an  inland,  international  water- 
way. 

Switzerland,  in  endeavoring  to  maintain  the  national  indus- 
tries and  foreign  trade  in  competition  with  rival  nations  and 
to  secure  continued  prosperity  for  its  inhabitants,  has  been 
seriously  restricted  by  the  heavy  charges  for  railway  trans- 
portation between  the  Alps  and  the  sea  and  by  the  onerous 
customs  dues  of  the  surrounding  states.  Realizing  that  an  un- 
restricted highway  of  communication  with  the  sea  is  essential 
to  its  future  existence  in  the  relentless  industrial  conflict, 
Switzerland  has  undertaken  the  extensive  improvement  of  the 
Rhine;  the  completion  of  which  will  afford  direct  communica- 
tion with  all  the  maritime  nations  of  the  world. 

In  theory,  and  almost  without  exception  in  practice,  the 
freedom  of  the  seas  has  become  an  uncontested  principle ;  and, 
similarly,  the  right  appertaining  to  arterial  inland  waters, 
evolved  from  the  freedom  of  the  seas,  has  been  accepted  by  all 
nations  and  applied  to  all  waterways  which  conform  to  the 
stipulations.  The  freedom  of  the  high  seas  has  not  yet  been 
fully  achieved,  in  time  of  peace,  because  of  abnormal  exten- 
sions of  the  marginal  sea  or  appropriations  of  maritime  terri- 
tory which  rightfully  belongs  to  the  world  in  common;  while 
during  war,  the  unrestrained  exactions  of  belligerents,  in  the 
event  of  a  prolonged  and  bitterly  waged  conflict,  amount  to 
the  virtual  denial  of  the  sea  to  all  neutral  nations.  Ulti- 
mately, through  the  slow  process  of  international  consensus,  all 
maritime  nations  will  participate  in  the  commercial  navigation 
of  the  sea  without  suffering  the  restrictions  imposed  by  bellig- 
erents nor  the  exactions  of  nations  indefensibly  limiting  the 
peaceful  use  of  the  world's  waterways. 

The  progress  of  liberation,  continuing  throughout  the  nine- 


NAVIGATION    ON    INLAND    WATERWAYS  169 

teenth  century,  warrants  this  conviction;  wliole  seas  have 
gradually  been  delivered  from  age-long  restrictions ;  the  extent 
of  the  marginal  sea  has  been  restricted;  the  states  situated  on 
the  same  navigable  waterway  have  recognized  the  benefit  to 
be  derived  from  mutual  participation;  and  based  on  this  en- 
lightened conception  international  law  has  sanctioned  the  prin- 
ciple that  wherever  three  or  more  states  are  accessible  from 
the  sea,  the  communicating  waterway  shall  be  dedicated  to 
the  commercial  navigation  of  all  the  world.  The  application 
and  practice  of  this  principle  during  the  nineteenth  century 
has  dispelled  doubts,  originally  entertained,  so  that  nations  now 
evince  a  desire  to  permit  the  participation  of  foreign  vessels 
in  the  coasting  trade  of  international  waterways;  and  in  the 
navigation  of  waters  —  like  the  Karun  in  Asia,  the  San  Fran- 
cisco and  Tocantins  in  South  America,  and  the  waterways  of 
China  and  Honduras  —  exclusively  within  the  national  do- 
main. 

The  freedom  of  the  seas;  expressed  in  principle  by  Grotius 
in  the  seventeenth  century,  and  vindicated  in  practice  at  the 
commencement  of  the  nineteenth;  engendered  the  principle 
which  received  initial  acceptance  among  nations  barely  a  cen- 
tury ago  and  which,  during  the  nineteenth  century,  received  re- 
peated confirmation  by  the  Treaty  of  Paris  (1856)  ;  the  Brazil- 
ian Decree  of  1867;  the  Congress  of  Berlin  (1878)  ;  and  the 
Treaty  of  London  (1883)  ;  until,  with  the  advent  of  the  twen- 
tieth century,  all  waterways  susceptible  of  internationalization 
are  freely  dedicated  to  commercial  navigation  by  every  nation. 
The  implicit  observance  of  international  law  assures  each 
maritime  state  equality  of  opportunity  for  participation  in  the 
lucrative  enterprises  of  the  sea  and  for  engaging  in  commer- 
cial navigation  upon  the  afiluent  inland  waterways  of  the 
world.  This  beneficent  principle;  first  proclaimed  at  the  ter- 
mination of  the  destructive  ISTapoleonic  Wars,  at  a  time  when 
nations  were  disposed  to  espouse  genuinely  constructive  meas- 
ures; may  be  interpretated  as  an  appreciation  of  the  necessity 
of  international  co-operation,   particularly  in  all  commercial 


170  INTERNATIOlSrAL    WATERWAYS 

and  maritime  interests,  and  as  an  expression  of  a  profound 
belief  in  the  enduring  value,  to  all  maritime  states,  of  the  ab- 
solute freedom  of  all  waterways,  whether  maritime  or  inland. 
It  represents  an  enlightened  interpretation  of  political,  eco- 
nomic, and  social  relations  by  affording  enhanced  facilities  for 
commercial  and  intellectual  intercourse  among  all  nations ;  a 
significant  contrast  to  the  universal  conception  of  the  world 
and  of  the  mutual  obligations  incumbent  on  every  state,  enter- 
tained until  the  disastrous  Napoleonic  conflict  compelled  the 
renovation  of  international  relations. 

The  necessities,  and  in  some  instances  the  continued  prosper- 
ity and  development,  of  states  under  the  existing  conditions 
of  modern  civilization  demand  the  implicit  observance  of  the 
principles  of  international  law  governing  the  freedom  of  the 
seas  and  of  inland  waterways  which  constitute,  for  some  in- 
land states,  the  only  independent  highway  of  communication 
with  the  open  sea,  assuring  the  uninterrupted  intercourse  of 
the  nations  of  the  world. 

Speaking  before  the  United  States'  Senate,  President  Wil- 
son demonstrated  the  necessity  of  co-operation  and  the  strict- 
est observance  of  the  law  among  nations: 

"  So  far  as  practicable,  moreover,  every  great  people  now 
struggling  toward  a  full  development  of  its  resources  and  of 
its  powers  should  be  assured  a  direct  outlet  to  the  great  high- 
ways of  the  sea.  Where  this  cannot  be  done  by  the  cession  of 
territory,  it  can  no  doubt  be  done  by  the  neutralization  of 
direct  rights  of  way  under  the  general  guarantee  which  will  as- 
sure the  peace  itself.  With  a  right  comity  of  arrangement  no 
nation  need  be  shut  away  from  free  access  to  the  open  paths 
of  the  world's  commerce.  And  the  paths  of  the  sea  must 
alike  in  law  and  in  fact  be  free.  The  freedom  of  the  seas 
is  the  sine  qua  non  of  peace,  equality  and  co-operation.  No 
doubt  a  somewhat  radical  reconsideration  of  many  of  the  rules 
of  international  practice  hitherto  thought  to  be  established 
may  be  necessary  in  order  to  make  the  seas  indeed  free  and 
common  in  practically  all  commerce  for  the  use  of  mankind, 


NAVIGATION    ON    INLAND    WATERWAYS  l7l 

but  the  motive  of  such  changes  is  convincing  and  compelling. 
There  can  be  no  trust  or  intimacy  between  the  peoples  of  the 
world  without  them.  The  free,  constant,  unthreatened  inter- 
course of  nations  is  an  essential  part  of  the  process  of  peace  and 
development.  It  need  not  be  difficult  either  to  define  or  to 
secure  the  freedom  of  the  seas  if  the  governments  of  the  world 
sincerely  desire  to  come  to  an  agreement  concerning  it.  It  is 
a  problem  closely  connected  with  the  limitation  of  naval  arma- 
ments and  the  co-operation  of  the  navies  of  the  world  in  keep- 
ing the  seas  at  once  free  and  safe.  .  .  .  The  question  of  arma- 
ments, whether  on  land  or  sea,  is  the  most  determined  and  in- 
tensely practicable  question  connected  with  the  future  fortunes 
of  nations  and  of  mankind."  (President  Wilson,  Address  to 
the  United  States  Senate,  January  22,  1917  Neiv  York  Sun, 
Jan.  22,  1917.) 


PART  II 

RErERE:N'CE-MANUAL  TO  THE  TREATIES,  CON- 
VENTIONS, LAWS,  AND  OTHER  FUNDAMENTAL 
ACTS  GOVERNING  THE  INTERNATIONAL  USE 
OF  INLAND  WATERWAYS 


SECTION  I 

IOT)EX  OF  ABBREVIATIONS  DISTINGUISHING  THE 
PRINCIPAL  DOCUMENTARY  COLLECTIONS 


Charle8;  UST; 


Clercq;  RTF: 


Cussy/Hauterive ;  RTC; 


Cussy/Martens : 

Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  I: 


CHARLES;  Garfield:  Treaties,  Con- 
ventions, International  Acts,  Protocols, 
and  Agreements  between  the  United 
States  of  America  and  other  Powers. 
(A  Supplement  to  the  earlier  collection 
edited  by  William  Malloy.)  Washing- 
ton, 1913. 

CLERCQ;  Alexander  &  Jules  de: 
Recueil  des  Traites  de  la  France.  19 
vols.     (Paris,  1864-95)  1713-1893. 

CUSSY;  Ferdinand  de: 
HAUTERIVE;  Alexandre  M.  B.  de 
L.d' :  Recueil  des  Traites  de  Commerce 
et  de  Navigation  de  la  France,  avec  les 
Puissances  etrangeres,  depuis  la  Paix  de 
Westphalie,  en  1648,  suivi  de  Recueil  des 
Principaux  Traites  de  meme  Nature 
conclus  par  les  Puissances  etrangeres 
entre  elles,  depuis  la  meme  epoque.  10 
vols.  Paris:  Rey  et  Gravier,  1834r- 
1844. 

CUSSY;  Ferdinand  de: 
MARTENS;  Karl  von:  Recueil  Man- 
uel et  Pratique  de  Traites,  Conventions 
et  autrcs  Actes  diplomatiques,  sur  les- 
quels  sont  etablis  les  relations  et  les  rap- 
ports existant  aujourd'hui  entre  les 
divers  etats  souverains  du  globe,  depuis 
I'annee  1760  jusqu'a  I'epoque  actuelle. 
(First  Series)  7  vols.  Leipzig,  Brock- 
haus,  1846-1857. 
175 


176 


IinJEX    OF    ABBREVIATIONS 


Cussy/Martens : 

Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  II : 


Deschamps/Eenault ; 

EIT 


KIT 


Dodd ;    Modem    Consti- 
tutions : 
Dumont;  Corps  Univ. 

Dipl: 


Dumont;  Corps  Univ. 
Dipl.  Suppl. 


GB:BFSP: 

GB:TRSER: 
Hertslet;  Africa; 

Hertslet;  China: 


CUSSY;  Ferdinand  de: 
GEFFCKEN;  F.  H.: 
MARTENS;  Karl  von:  Recueil 
Manuel  et  Pratique  de  Traites,  Conven- 
tions et  autres  Actes  diplomatiques  .  .  . 
continuation.     (Second    Series)    3    vols. 
Leipzig,  Brockhaus,  1885-1888. 
DESCHA]\IPS ;  E.  E.  F. : 
RENAULT;    Louis:    Recueil    interna- 
tional des  Traites  du  XIX  Siecle;  con- 
tenant  I'ensemble  du  droit  conventionnel 
entre  les  etats  et  les  sentences  arbitrales. 
(Contains   the   original   texts   with   the 
French  version.)     Paris,  1914. 
DESCHAMPS/RENAULT:        Recueil 
international  des  Traites  du  XX  Siecle 
.  .  .  continuation.     Paris. 
DODD;  W.  F.:  Modern  Constitutions. 
2  vols. 

DUMONT ;  Jean : 
BARBEYRAC;  J.: 

ROUSSET;  J.:  Corps  Universel  Diplo- 
matique du  Droit  des  Gens.  (Charle- 
magne-1726)  8  vols.  Amsterdam,  1726- 
1731. 

DUMONT/BARBEYRAC'/ROUSSET ": 
Corps  Universel  Diplomatique  du  Droit 
des  Gens  .  .  .  (continuation).  Supple- 
ment. 5  vols.  Amsterdam,  1739. 
GREAT  BRITAIN:  British  and  For- 
eign State  Papers.  Vol.  I-Vol.  CVH; 
1806/1807-1913/1914.  London,  Foreign 
Office. 

GREAT  BRITAIN:  Treaty  Series. 
London,  1892  (Vol.  I.) -date. 

HERTSLET;  Edward:  Map  of  Africa 
by  Treaty.  3  vols.  3rd  Edit.  London, 
1909. 

HERTSLET;  Edward: 

HERTSLET;   Godfrey  E.   P.:    China 

Treaties.    2  vols.    London,  1908. 


INDEX    OF    ABBKEVIATIONS 


177 


Hertslet;  COM.  TR. 


Hertslet;   Europe: 


Koch/Schoell;  Hist. 

Abr.Tr: 


Lagemans ;  Netherlands : 


Malloy;  UST 


Martens;  Eec.  Russ; 


Martens;  Loix  &  Ord. 


Martens;  RPT 


HERTSLET;  Edward:  Commercial 
Treaties;  A  Complete  Collection  of  the 
Treaties  and  Conventions  subsisting  be- 
tween Great  Britain  and  Foreign  Pow- 
ers; and  of  the  Laws,  Decrees,  Orders 
in  Council,  &c,  concerning  the  same  .  .  . 
London,  1827  (Vol.  I.)-1895  (Vol.  XIX.) 
HERTSLET;  Edward:  Map  of  Europe 
by  Treaty  .  .  .  since  the  General  Peace 
of  1814.  4  vols.  London,  1875  (Eirst 
Edit.),  1891  (Second  Edit.). 
KOCH;  Christophe  G.: 
SCHOELL;  Maximilian  S.  E.: 
Histoire  Abregee  des  Traites  de  Paix 
entre  les  Puissances  de  I'Europe  depuis 
la  Paix  de  Westphalie.  15  vols.  Paris, 
1817-18. 

LAGEMANS;  E.  G.:  Recueil  des 
Traites  et  Conventions  conclus  par  le 
Royaume  des  Pays-Bas  avec  les  Puis- 
sances etrangeres;  depuis  1813  jusqu'a 
nos  jours.  14  vols.  The  Hague,  1859- 
1901. 

MALLOY;  William:  Treaties,  Conven- 
tions, International  Acts,  Protocols,  and 
Agreements  between  the  United  States 
of  America  and  other  Powers;  1776- 
1909.  2  vols.  Washington,  1910.  Sup- 
plementary volume  compiled  by  Garfield 
Charles;  Washington,  1913.  (See: 
Charles;  UST.) 

MARTENS;  Fedor  F.:  Recueil  des 
Traites  et  Conventions  conclus  par  la 
Russia  avec  les  Puissances  etrangeres. 
15  vols.  St.  Petersburg,  Ministry  of 
Communications,  1874^1909. 
MARTENS;  G.  F.  von:  Loix  et  Or- 
donnances  des  diverses  Puissances 
europeenes  concernant  le  commerce,  la 
navigation,  etc  .  .  depuis  le  milieu  du 
Septieme  Siecle.  Gottingen,  1802. 
MAHTENS;    G.    F.   von:    Recueil   des 


178 


INDEX    OF    ABBEEVIATIONS 


Martens;  RT: 

Martens;  NRT: 

Martens;  RT.SUPPL.: 

Martens;  RT.NS : 
Martens;    NRG.SERJ. 
Martens;  NRG.SER.II. 


Martens ; 


NGR.SER.III. : 


Moore;  Int.Arb. 


Moore ;    ILD : 


Neumann;  RTA 


Norway;  Treaties: 


Principaux  Traites  d' Alliance,  de  Paix, 
deTreve;  ...  1761-1801.  7  vols.  Got- 
tingen,  1791-1801. 

MARTENS;  G.  F.  von:  Recueil  des 
Traites  d' Alliance,  de  Paix,  de  Treve, 
.  .  .  depuis  1761.  8  vols.  Gottingen, 
1817-1835. 

MARTENS;  G.  F.  von:  Nouveau 
Recueil  des  Traites  d' Alliance,  de  Paix, 
de  Treve;  .  .  .  1808—1842.  16  vols. 
Gottingen,  1817-1842. 
MARTENS ;  G.  F.  von :  Supplement  au 
Recueil  des  Principaux  Traites  d' Alli- 
ance, etc.  10  vols.  Gottingen,  1802- 
1828. 

MARTENS ;  G.  F.  von :  Nouveaux  Sup- 
plemens  au  Recueil  des  Traites;  1761 — 
1842.     3  vols.     Gottingen.     1839-1842. 
MARTENS;  G.  F.  von:  Nouveau  Re- 
cueil General  des  Traites.     Series  I.     22 
vols.     Gottingen,   1843-1875. 
MARTENS;     G.     F.     von:     Nouveau 
Recueil  General  des  Traites.     Series  11. 
35  vols.     Gottingen,  1876-1908. 
MARTENS;     G.     F.     von:     Nouveau 
Recueil     General     des     Traites;     1909- 
1913.      Series     III.      7     vols.      Leipzig, 
1909-1913. 

MOORE;  John  Bassett:  History  and 
Digest  of  the  International  Arbitrations 
to  which  the  United  States  has  been  a 
party  ...  6  vols.  Washington,  1898. 
MOORE ;  John  Bassett :  A  Digest  of  In- 
ternational Law.  8  vols.  Washington, 
1906. 

NEUMANN;  Leopold:  Recueil  des 
Traites  et  Conventions  conclus  par 
I'Austriche  avec  les  Puissances  etrang- 
eres  depuis  1763  jusqu'a  nos  jours. 
24  vols.  Leipzig/Vienna,  1855-1909. 
NORWAY:  Recueil  des  Traites  de  la 
Norvege.     Kristiana,  1907. 


INDEX    OF   ABBEEVIATIONS 


179 


Olivart ;    Colecc. 

Tratados : 


RT.PAIX ; 


Stowell;    Int.    Cases: 


Sturdza;  Rec.  Doc. 


US:  For.  Eel. 


OLIVART;   Marquis  de:   Coleccion  de 

los  Tratados,   Convenios  y  Documentos 

Internacionales.    9  vols.    Madrid,  1890- 

99. 

Recueil  des  Traitez  de  Paix  .  .  .  depuis 

la    Naissance    de    Jesus-Christ    jusqu'a 

present.     4  vols.     Amsterdam,  1700. 

MUNRO ;  Henry  F. : 

STOWELL;  Ellery  C. : 

International       Cases.     2       vols.     New 

York,  1916. 

STURDZA;   Dimitrie   A.:   Recueil   des 

Documents    relatifs    a    la    Liberte    de 

Navigation  du  Danube.     Berlin,  1904. 

UNITED  STATES :  Foreign  Relations. 

Washington,  1870-date. 


SECTION  II 

THE  INTERNATIONAL  INLAND  WATERWAYS  OF  THE 
WORLD  BY  CONTINENTAL  DIVISIONS 

EUROPE 
ADIGE. 

1797;  Oct.  17:  Campo  Formio.  Treaty.  Austria/France.  Art.  XI. 
Reciprocal  freedom  of  navigation.     Martens,  RT,  VI,  424. 

1801 ;  Febr.  9 :  Luneville.  Treaty.  Austria/France.  Art.  14.  Free- 
dom of  navigation;  prohibition  of  tolls;  maintenance  of  war- 
vessels  forbidden.  Neumann,  RTA,  II,  5;  Univ.  of  Penn., 
Transl.  &  Reprints,  II,  12,  No.  2. 

1815;  June  9:  Vienna:  Treaty.  Austria,  France,  Great  Britain, 
Portugal,  Prussia,  Russia,  Spain,  Sweden.  Art.  93:  Boundary. 
Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  I,  pt.  1,  78;  Deschamps/Renault,  RIT, 
I,  319 ;  Hertslet,  Europe,  263 ;  Lagemans,  Netherlands,  I,  No.  30 ; 
Martens,  NRT,  II,  436. 

1866;  Aug.  23;  Treaty  of  Prague  extinguished  international  rights 
by  ceding  Venetia  to  Italy. 

ANGOUSTRINE  CANAL. 

1866;  May  26:  Bayonne.  Treaty.  France/Spain.  Art.  27:  Bound- 
ary.    Olivart,  Colecc.  Tratados,  IV,  246-62. 

1868;  July  11:  Bayonne.  Convention.  France  &  Spain.  Arts. 
VII,  VIII:  Regulations.  Hertslet,  Europe,  1844;  Olivart, 
Colecc.  Tratados,  IV,  322-30. 

ANNECY  LAKE 

1815;   Nov.    3:   Paris.     Protocol.     Austria,   Great   Britain,   Prussia, 

Russia.     Art.  4;  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  328. 
1815 ;    Nov.    20 :    Paris.     Treaty.     Austria,    France,    Great   Britain, 

Prussia,  Russia.     Art.  3:  Hertslet,  Europe,  346,  370. 
1860;    Aug.    23:    Paris.      Convention.      France/Sardinia.      Art.    6: 

Hertslet,  Europe,  1453. 

ARAVO 

1866;    May    26:    Bayonne.     Treaty.     France    &    Spain.     Art.    20: 

Hertslet,  Europe,  1647;  Olivart,  Colecc.  Tratados,  IV,  246-62. 

180 


ETTEOPE  181 

Arve 
AUVE 

1815;  Mar.  29:  Yienna.  Treaty.  Art.  I.  (Included  in  Annex  XII 
of  Final  Act) :  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  70. 

1815;  May  20:  Vienna:  Treaty.  Austria,  France,  Great  Britain, 
Prussia,  Kussia,  Sardinia.  Art  I  of  Annex  B.  B.  (Formed 
Annex  13  of  Final  Act) :  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  164. 

1815 ;  June  9 :  Vienna.  Treaty.  Austria,  France,  Great  Britain, 
Portugal,  Prussia,  Russia,  Spain,  Sweden.  Art.  80;  118,  sec.  12; 
Annex  12:  Hertslet,  Europe,  80,  273,  275. 

1816;  Mar.  16:  Turin.  Treaty.  Geneva,  Sardinia,  Swiss  Confed- 
eration.    Art.  I:   Thalweg  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  424. 

1819;  July  20:  Frankfort.  Treaty.  Austria,  Great  Britain,  Prus- 
sia, Eussia.  Art.  41:  Thalweg  Boundary.  Hertslet,  Europe, 
611. 

1904;  March  9:  Paris.  Convention.  France/Switzerland.  Regula- 
tion of  fisheries.     Martens,  NRG,   SEE.   II,   XXXIII,   501. 

AVETO 

1766;     Mar.     10:     Turin.      Treaty.      Parma/Sardinia.      Preamble: 

Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  693. 
1822;     Nov.     26:     Turin.      Treaty.      Parma/Sardinia.      Boundary. 

Hertslet,  Europe,   693. 

BIDASSOA 

1683;  Oct.  19:  Madrid.  Treaty.  France/Spain.  Reciprocal  free- 
dom of  navigation  &  fishing.  Dumont,  Corps  Univ.  Dipl.,  VII, 
71;  RT.  PAIX,  IV,  482. 

1685;  Oct.  19:  Madrid.  Treaty.  France/Spain.  Freedom  of  navi- 
gation &  fishing  for  the  subjects  of  both  nations.  Cussy/Haut- 
erive,  RTC,  I,  pt.  1,  361. 

1856 ;  Dec.  2  :  Bayonne.  Treaty.  France/Spain.  Arts.  1 ;  9 ;  20-25 ; 
28:  Freedom  of  navigation  &  fishing.  Hertslet,  Europe,  1291; 
1294-95. 

1859;  Mar.  31:  Bayonne.  Additional  Act.  France/Spain.  Regu- 
lating fisheries.  GB.BFSP,  Vol.  50,  1006;  Hertslet,  Europe, 
3214. 

1868;  July  11:  Bayonne.  Additional  Act.  France/Spain.  Navi- 
gation Regulations.     Hertslet,  Europe,  1846. 

1879;  Mar.  30:  Bayonne.  Declaration.  France/Spain.  Arts.  VI- 
XII:  Delimination  of  boundaries.  Art.  XII:  Reafiirming  Fish- 
ing Regulations  of  Dec.  2,  1856  &  Mar.  31,  1859.  Clercq,  RTF, 
XII,  394. 

1886;     Feb,     18:     Bayonne.    Couvention,    France/Spain.    Fishing 


182  EtIEOPE 

Bidassoa 

Regulations.     Clercq,  RTF,  XVII,  77;  GB.BFSP,  Vol.  77,  1073; 

Martens,  NRG,   Ser.  II,  XII,  687. 
1888;  Jan.  19:  Madrid.     Protocol.     France/Spain.     Concerning  fish- 
ing rights.     Martens,  NRG,  SER.  Ill,  III,  253,  256. 
1890;   May   10:   Bayonne.     Agreement.     France/Spain.     Navigation 

Regulations;  suppression  of  contraband  trade.     GB.BFSP,  Vol. 

82,  1015;  Martens,  NRG,  SER.  II,  XVIII,  72. 
1894;      Oct.      4:      Bayonne.     Declaration.     France/Spain.     Fishing 

Regulations.     Martens,  NRG,  SER.  Ill,  VII,  421. 
1906 ;   June   9 :   Bayonne.     Declaration.     France/Spain.     Regulating 

Fisheries.     Martens,  NRG,  SER.  Ill,  VII,  422. 
1908;   Apr.   6:   Bayonne.     Declaration.     France/Spain.     Concerning 

riverain  fisheries.     Martens,  NRG,  SER,  HI,  III,  256. 

BLIESSE 

1825 ;     July     5 :     Paris.      Convention.      Bavaria/France.      Art.     I. 

Thalweg  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  727. 
1827 ;     June     11 :     Paris.     Declaration.     France/Prussia.     Art.     V. 

Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  768. 
1829;     Oct.     23:     Sarrebruck.     Convention.     France/Prussia.     Art. 

XIL     Mutual  Fishing  Rights.     Hertslet,  Europe,  837. 

BOUNDARY  WATERWAYS 
AUSTRIA/ITALY 

1867;  Dec.  22:  Venice.  Convention.  Arts.  3;  6.  Hertslet,  Europe, 
1833. 

AUSTRIA/POLAND. 

1776;  Feb.  9:  Warsaw.  Convention.  Art.  5.  Neumann,  RTA,  I, 
196. 

AUSTRIA/SARDINIA 

1834;  Dec.  4:  Turin.  Treaty.  Arts.  1-24:  Suppression  of  Contra- 
band aboard  Vessels  navigating  Frontier  Waters.  Martens, 
NRT,  XIII,  198-205. 

AUSTRIA/SERVIA 

1882;  Feb.  10/22:  Belgrade.  Convention.  Arts.  I-XXVII.  River- 
ain Navigation  Regulations.  GB.BFSP,  Vol.  73,  519;  Neu- 
mann, RTA,  XI,  1441^3. 

BADEN/SWITZERLAND 

1908;  Nov.  17:  Convention.  Regulation  of  Fisheries.  Martens, 
NRG,  SER  III,  IV,  875. 


EUROPE  183 

Boundary  Waterways 
BELGIUM/FRANCE/GERMANY. 

1887;  Oct.  8:  Agreement.  Paris.  Regulating  Closure  of  Interna- 
tional Canals.     Martens,  NRG,  SER.  II,  XV,  747. 

BELGIUM/FRANCE/GERMANY/NETHERLANDS 
1908;  June  1:  Convention;  supplementing  Treaty  of  Feb.  4,  1898; 
governing  navigation.     Martens,  NRG,  SER.  Ill,  IV,  270. 

BELGIUM/NETHERLANDS 

1831;  Nov.  15.  London.  Treaty.  (1)  Belgium/Netherlands.  (2) 
Austria,  Belgium,  France,  Great  Britain,  Prussia,  Russia.  Art. 
IX.  Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation  on  all  waterways  form- 
ing or  traversing  the  international  boundary.  Cussy/Hauterive, 
RTC,  I,  pt.  2,  283;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR,  IV,  31;  Hertslet, 
Europe,  864. 

1839;  April  10/19:  London.  Treaty.  (1)  Belgium/Netherlands. 
(2)  Austria-Hungary,  Belgium,  France,  Great  Britain,  Nether- 
lands, Prussia,  Russia.  Arts.  8;  9;  10  &  Annex:  Reciprocal 
Freedom  of  Navigation  on  Waterways  traversing  or  forming 
international  boundary.  Clercq.  RTF.  IV,  470-477 ;  Cussy/Mar- 
tens,  Rec.  Man.  Ser.  I,  IV,  575;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  V,  354, 
359;  Hertslet,  Europe,  987-998;  Lagemans,  Netherlands,  Vol. 
II,  no.  165;  Neumann,  RTA,  IV,  416,  421;  Sturdza,  Rec.  Doc. 
85^55. 

1842;  Nov.  5:  The  Hague.  Treaty.  Belgium/Netherlands.  Arts. 
38-49;  Navigation  Regulations.  Hertslet,  Europe,  1029;  Mar- 
tens, NRG.  SER.  I,  III,  622;  Sturdza,  Rec.  Doc,  862. 

1843;  May  20;  Antwerp.  Additional  Agreement.  Belgium/Neth- 
erlands. Regulating  Fishing  and  Navigation.  C ussy/Martens, 
Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  I,  V,  306,  citing  Moniteur  Beige,  1842 ;  Martens, 
NRG.  SER.  I,  294,  307,  334,  339,  381. 

1843;  Aug.  8:  Maastricht.  Convention.  Belgium/Netherlands. 
Arts.   35-36.     Hertslet,   Europe,   1031. 

1851 ;  Oct.  3 :  The  Hague.  Agreement.  Belgium/Netherlands. 
Navigation  Regulations.     Lagemans,  Netherlands,  III,  no.  269. 

FRANCE/GERMANY 

1871;  May  10:  Frankfort.  Treaty.  France/Germany.  Art.  V. 
Navigation.     Martens,  NRG.  SER.  I.  XIX,  688. 

FRANCE/SARDINIA 

1835;  Aug.  2:  Turin.     Convention.     France/Sardinia.     Arts.  I-VII. 


184  EUROPE 

Boundary  Waterways 

Regnlating  tlie  establishment  of  ferries  on  all  boundary  water- 
ways.    Clercq,  RTF,  IV,  308:  Martens,  NRT,  XIII,  4:06-407. 

FRANCE/SPAIN 

1866;  May  26:  Bayonne.  Treaty.  France/Spain.  Delimitation  of 
International  Boundaries.  Olivart,  Colecc.  Tratados,  IV, 
246-262. 

1866;  May  26:  Bayonne.  Additional  Agreement.  France/Spain. 
Arts.  8-21:  Regulation  &  Enjoyment  of  Frontier  Waters.  Oli- 
vart, Colecc.     Tratados,  IV,  331,  335-340. 

FRANCE/SWITZERLAND;  notably  the  Doubs,  the  Rhone,  and 
Geneva  (Leman)  Lake. 

1880;  Dec.  28:  Paris.  Convention.  France/Switzerland.  Govern- 
ing fisheries  in  frontier  waterways.  Clercq,  RTF,  XII,  619; 
Hertslet,  Europe,  3252 ;  Martens,  NRG,  SER.  II.  IX,  111. 

1884,  Dec.  9 :  Paris.  Convention.  France/Switzerland.  Fisheries 
Regulations.     Clercq,  RTF,  XIV,  428. 

1888;  April  14:  Berne.  Agreement.  France/Switzerland.  Fisher- 
ies Regiilations ;  abrogating  arrangement  of  Dec.  9,  1884;  mod- 
ifying Convention  of  Dec.  28,  1880.  France,  Journal  Officiel, 
Sept.  1,  1888;  Hertslet,  Europe,  3280;  Martens,  NRG,  SER. 
II,  XIV,  410. 

1891;  Mar.  12:  Berne.  Convention.  France/Switzerland.  Fisher- 
ies Regulations;  modifying  Arts.  2,  3  &  8  of  Convention  of 
Dec.  28,  1880.  Clercq,  XIX,  62;  Martens,  NRG.  SER.  II, 
XYIU,  238. 

1891;  July  30:  Berne.  Agi'eement.  France/Switzerland.  Regulat- 
ing fisheries  in  frontier  waters.  Clercq,  RTF,  XIX,  250;  Mar- 
tens, NRG,  SER.  II.,  XVIII,  848 ;  XXI,  24. 

1904 ;  March  9  :  Paris.  Convention.  France/Switzerland.  Regulat- 
ing Fisheries.     Martens,  NRG.  SER.  II.,  XXXIII,  501. 

1909:  Jan.  20:  Lausanne.  Agreement.  France/Switzerland.  Fish- 
eries Regulations;  supplementing  Convention  of  March  9,  1904. 
Martens,  NRG.  SER.  IIL,  V,  318. 

HANOVER/LUBECK 

1844;  Feb.  14:  Dresden.  Treaty.  Hanover/Lubeck.  Art  II.  Mu- 
tual freedom  of  navigation.     Martens,  NRG.  SER.  I.,  VI,  131. 

ITALY/SWITZERLAND. 

1882;  Nov.  8:  Berne.  Convention.  Italy/Switzerland.  Regulating 
fisheries  in  frontier  waters.     Martens,  NRG.  SER.  II,  IX,  564. 


EUEOPE  185 

Boundary  Waterways 

1906;  June  15:  Lugano.  Convention.  Italy/Switzerland.  Fish- 
eries regulation.     Martens,  NRG.  SEE.  II,  XXXV,  471. 

NETHERLANDS/PEUSSIA. 

1816;    June   26:   Aix-la-Chapelle    (Aachen).     Treaty.     Netherlands/ 

Prussia.     Art.    27:    Reciprocal    enjoyment    of    navigation    and 

fishing.     Hertslet,  Europe,  451. 

PORTUGAL/SPAIN 

1866;  Apr.  27:  Lisbon.  Convention.  Portugal/Spain.  Art.  VI: 
Police  and  Navigation  Regulations.  Olivart,  Colecc.  Tratados, 
IV,  240,  244. 

1872;  Dec.  20:  Lisbon.  Treaty.  Portugal/Spain.  Art.  16:  Par- 
ticipation in  Coasting  Trade,  whether  Fluvial  or  Maritime,  ex- 
pressly Forbidden;  Stipulation  of  Treaty  of  Lisbon,  Apr.  27, 
1866,  concerning  Freedom  of  Fluvial  Navigation  explicitly  con- 
firmed.    Olivart,  Colecc.  Tratados,  VII,  315,  322. 

RUSSIA/SWEDEN 

1810;  Nov.  8/20:  Tornea.     Treaty.     Russia/Sweden.     Arts  II,  IV: 

Mutual  liberty  of  navigation.     Cussy/Hauterive,   RTC,   V,  pt. 

2,  515. 

BOURN  A  SOLA  LAKE 

1856;  May  30:  Paris.  Treaty.  Austria,  France,  Great  Britain, 
Prussia,  Russia,  Sardinia,  Turkey.  Art.  20:  Boundary.  Herts- 
let,  Europe,  1250,  1259. 

BOURGET  LAKE 

1815;   Nov.   3:   Paris.     Protocol.     Austria,   Great   Britain,   Prussia, 

Russia.     Art.  IV.     Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  328. 
1815;    Nov.    20:    Paris.     Treaty.     Austria,    France,    Great    Britain, 

Prussia,  Russia.     Art.  3 :  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  347. 

BOYANA 

1877;  Mar.  31:  London.  Protocol.  Austria-Hungary,  France,  Ger- 
many, Great  Britain,  Italy,  Russia.  Concerning  desirability  of 
free  navigation.     Hertslet,  Europe,  2563. 

(*NOTE : 

(1878;  Mar.  3:  San  Stephano.  Treaty.  Russia/Turkey.  Art.  I. 
Navigation  to  be  regulated  by  the  European  Commission  en- 
trusted   with    the    establishment    of    boundary    of    Montenegro. 


186  EUEOPE 

Boycina 

Hertslet,  Europe,  2675.  *Being  inoperative,  this  treaty  was 
supplanted  by  Treaty  of  Berlin,  July  13,  1878.  Hertslet, 
Europe,  2783.) 

1878;  July  13:  Berlin.  Treaty.  Austria-Hungary,  France,  Ger- 
many, Great  Britain,  Italy,  Eussia,  Turkey.  Art.  29 :  Monte- 
negro granted  complete  freedom  of  navigation.  Hertslet, 
Europe,  2764,  2783. 

1879;  Mar.  18:  London.  Notification.  British  Board  of  Trade. 
British  Consul  at  Scutari  reports  Boyana  open  to  merchant 
ships.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  70,  241. 

BROMBERG  CANAX 

1807;  July  7:  Tilsit.  Treaty.  France/Prussia.  Art.  17:  Naviga- 
tion exempt  from  all  dues.  Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  III,  pt. 
1,  43. 

BUG 

1776 ;    Feb.    9 :    Warsaw.      Convention.      Austria/Poland.      Art.    5. 

Mutual  liberty  of  navigation.     Neumann,  RTA,  I,  196. 
1815 ;   June   9 :   Vienna.     Treaty.     Austria,   France,    Great   Britain, 

Portugal,   Prussia,   Russia,    Spain,    Sweden.     Art.    5 :     Thalweg 

Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  218. 
1829 ;    July    10 :    Radziwilow.     Treaty.     Austria/Russia.     Preamble 

&  Art.  3:     Thalweg  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  810-11. 

CERCHIO 

1844;  Nov.  28:  Florence.  Treaty.  Austria,  Lucca,  Modena,  Sar- 
dinia, Tuscany.  Art.  9 :  Thalweg  Boundary.  Hertslet,  Eu- 
rope, 1055. 

OISA 

1844;  Nov.  28:  Florence.  Treaty.  Austria,  Lucca,  Modena,  Sar- 
dinia, Tuscany.  Art.  5 :  Constitutes  International  Boundary. 
Hertslet,  Europe,  1052. 

CONSTANCE  LAI^E 

1844;  Jan.  30:  Munich.  Treaty.  Austria/Bavaria.  Arts.  1;  8-12: 
Boundary  &  Navigation.     Hertslet,  Europe,  1034. 

1850;  Dec.  16:  Munich.  Treaty.  Austria/Bavaria.  Arts.  4;  5;  6: 
Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  1146. 

1853 ;  May  2 :  Berne.  Convention.  Bavaria/Switzerland.  Naviga- 
tion Regulations.     Martens,  NRG.  SER.  I,  XX,  112. 


,    EUROPE  187 

Constance  Lake 

1854;  :  Convention.  Austria/Bavaria/Wurtemburg.  Suppres- 
sion of  contraband  trade.  Cussy/Martens,  Kec.  Man.,  Ser.  I, 
VII,  359.     (Cited;  no  text.) 

1854;  Oct.  20/31:  Stuttgart/Zurich.  Convention.  Baden/Switzer- 
land.    Art.  1:  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  1219-20. 

1857;  Aug.  31:  Constance.  Convention.  Austria,  Baden,  Bavaria, 
Switzerland,  Wurtemburg.  Kegulating  level  of  waters.  Mar- 
tens, NKG.  SER.  I,  XX,  115. 

1867;  Sep.  22:  Bregenz.  Convention.  Austria,  Baden,  Bavaria, 
Switzerland,  Wurtemburg.  Navigation  Regulations.  Martens, 
NRG.  SER.  I,  XX,  117 ;  Neumann,  RTA,  V  n.  s.,  255. 

1867;  Sep.  28:  St.  Gall.  Convention.  Baden/Switzerland.  Naviga- 
tion Regulations.  Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man,  Ser.  II,  I,  441. 
Martens,  NRG.  SER.  I,  XX,  139. 

1875 ;  Marcbi  25 ;  including  Declarations  of  Nov.  30  &  Dec.  5,  1875 : 
Basle.  Convention.  Baden/Switzerland.  Regulating  fisheries 
in  the  Lake  &  in  the  Rhine  &  its  affluents.  Martens,  NRG.  SER. 
II,  II,  60. 

1884;  Sep.  21:  Colmar.  Convention.  Alsace-Lorraine,  Baden,  Swit- 
zerland. Fisheries  Regulations.  Martens,  NRG.  SER.  II,  X, 
523. 

1887 ;  May  18 :  Lucerne.  Convention.  Alsace-Lorraine,  Baden,  Swit- 
zerland. Protection  of  mutual  fishing  privileges.  Martens, 
NRG.  SER.  II,  XIV,  350. 

1892 ;  May  6 :  Bregenz.  Agreement.  Austria,  Baden,  Bavaria,  Swit- 
zerland, Wurtemburg.  Revised  Navigation  Regulations ;  modify- 
ing stipulations  of  Treaty  of  Bregenz,  Sept.  22,  1867.  Martens, 
NRG,  SER.  II,  XVIII,  903 ;  XX,  354.  Neumann,  RTA,  XX  n. 
s.,  417. 

1895;  Jan.  14:  Vienna.  Regulation.  Austrian  Government.  Gov- 
erning Transportation  of  Explosives.  Neumann,  RTA,  XVII  n. 
s.,  207. 

1896;  Mar.  20:  Vienna.  Convention.  Austria/Switzerland.  Gov- 
erning Navigation  in  conformity  with  special  Sanitary  Regula- 
tions. GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  88,  365;  Martens,  NRG,  SER.  II, 
XXIII,  262;  XXIV,  660. 

1899 ;  Apr.  8 :  Constance.  Treaty.  Austria,  Baden,  Bavaria,  Switzer- 
land, Wurtemburg.  Revised  Navigation  Regulations;  modify- 
ing stipulations  of  Treaty  of  Sept.  22,  1867.  Martens,  NRG, 
SER.  II,  XXX,  206. 

1908;  Nov.  17:  Convention.  Regulation  of  Fisheries.  Baden/Swit- 
zerland,   }iaTt§ns,  NRG,  SER.  HI,  IV,  875, 


188  ErEOPE 

Constance  Lake 

1910;  Jan.  1:  Treaty.  Austria,  Baden,  Bavaria,  Switzerland,  Wur- 
temburg.  Governing  Navigation.  Martens,  NRG,  SEE..  Ill, 
VII,  435.  (Commentary:  OPPENHEIM,  Int.  Law,  I,  230; 
RIVIER,  Principes  du  Droit  des  Gens,  I,  230.) 


DANUBE 

1680;  December:  (Month  of  Ramadan,  1091) :  Capitulations.  Neth- 
etherlands/Ottoman  Porte.  Art.  58 :  Fluvial  Transportation  se- 
cured for  Dutch  vessels.     Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  TV,  pt.  2,  480. 

1699;  January  26:  Carlowitz.  Treaty.  Austria,  Poland,  Russia, 
Venice,  Turkey.  Dumont;  Corps  Univ.  Dipl.,  VII,  part  2,  448, 
451,  453. 

1718;  July  21/27:  Passarowitz.  Treaty.  Austria/Ottoman  Porte. 
Arts.  2 ;  4 ;  5 :  Freedom  of  Fluvial  Transit  for  Austrian  subjects 
to  Black  Sea,  Ibraila,  Kilia,  etc.  Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  I,  pt. 
2,  113;  Neumann,  RTA,  I,  1. 

1739;  Sept.  18:  Belgrade.  Treaty.  Austria/Ottoman  Porte.  Art. 
7 :  Regulation  of  Danubian  Fisheries.  C^ussy/Hauterive,  RTC, 
I,  pt.  2,  114. 

1774;  July  10:  Koutschouc-Kaynardgi.  Treaty.  Ottoman  Porte/ 
Russia.  Art.  10:  Privilege  of  Commercial  Navigation  &  Flu- 
vial Transportation  granted  to  Russian  vessels.  Cussy/Hau- 
terive, RTC,  V,  pt.  2,  141. 

1779;  May  13:  Teschen.  Convention.  Austria/Bavaria  (The  El- 
ector Palatine).  Art.  5:  Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation. 
Hertslet,  Europe,  III,  2012;  Martens,  RT,  II,  671;  Neumann, 
RTA,  I,  244.  (Commentary:  ENGELHARDT,  Histoire  du 
Droit  Fluvial  Conventionnel,  46;  MOORE,  Int.  Arb.,  pg.  4853; 
MOORE,  ILD,  I,  629.) 

1783;  June  10/21:  Constantinople.  Russia/Turkey.  Regulating 
commerce  and  navigation.     GB:  BFSP;  XIII,  902. 

1784;  Feb.  24:  Passarowitz.  Treaty.  Austria/Turkey.  Art.  IV, 
Art.  VI:  Freedom  of  Navigation.  Martens,  RT,  III,  723. 
(Commentary:  GEFFCKEN,  La  Question  du  Danube,  p.  6; 
SCHUYLER,  American  Diplomacy,  353.) 

1784;  Aug.  31:  Munich.  Treaty.  Austria/Bavaria.  Art.  IV:  Re- 
ciprocal Freedom  of  Navigation  in  conformity  with  Art.  V  of 


EUEOPE:  189 

Danube 

Treaty  of  Teschen.  Art.  X :  Exclusive  right  of  fisheries  on  re- 
spective sides  of  thalweg.  Oussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  I,  pt.  2,  48; 
Martens,  RT,  III,  755. 

1791;  Aug.  4:  Sistova.  Treaty.  Russia/Turkey.  Martens,  RPT,  V, 
244. 

1791;  Dec.  9/1792;  Jan.  9:  Jassy.  Treaty.  Eussia/Turkey.  GB: 
BFSP;  XIII,  902;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I,  V,  53. 

1812;  May  6/28:  Bucharest.  Treaty.  Russia/Turkey.  Art.  IV': 
Navigation  &  Fishing  throughout  lower  course  to  be  enjoyed  in 
common.  Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  V,  pt.  2,  190.  Koch/Schoell, 
Hist.  Abr.  Tr.,  XIV,  539.  (Commentary:  DESPAGNET, 
Droit  Int.  Publ.,  643;  WOOLSEY,  Intro.  Int.  Law,  sec.  62.) 

1815 ;  May  30 :  Constantinople.  Eirman,  Turkish  Government.  As- 
suring Austrian  Vessels  Free  Transit.     Neumann,  RTA,  VI,  476. 

1816;  Apr.  14:  Munich.  Treaty.  Austria/Bavaria.  Art.  IX:  Re- 
affirmation of  stipulations  governing  freedom  of  navigation  for- 
merly existing;  adoption  of  principles  sanctioned  by  the  Final 
Act  of  Vienna.  Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  I,  pt.  2,  51;  Martens, 
NRT,  III,  15. 

1826;  Sept.  25/Oct.  7:  Akkerman.  Convention.  Russia/Turkey. 
Supplementing  Treaty  of  Bucharest  of  May  28,  1812.  GB: 
BFSP,  XIII,  899;  Hertslet,  Europe,  I,  747. 

1829;  Sept.  14:  Adrianople.  Treaty.  Russia/Turkey.  Art.  3: 
Thalweg  Boundary;  Freedom  of  Commercial  Navigation;  Navi- 
gation by  Russian  War-vessels  to  terminate  at  Confluence  of 
Pruth.  Hertslet,  Europe,  815-16.  (Commentary:  DESPAG- 
NET, Droit  Int.  Pub.,  643;  GEFFCKEN,  La  Question  du  Dan- 
ube, 6;  L.  LEVI,  Int.  Law,  53;  WOOLSEY,  Intro.  Int.  Law, 
sec.  62.) 

1834;  -— :  Constantinople.  Hatti-Sheriff  (Decree).  Turkish  Gov- 
ernment. Art.  Ill:  Thalweg  Boundary;  Art.  7:  Liberty  of 
Navigation  for  Inhabitants  of  Moldavia  &  Wallachia.  Hertslet, 
Europe,  951. 

1835;  Mar.  4:  Athens.  Treaty.  Austria/Greece.  Art.  17:  Com- 
mercial Navigation.     Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  IV,  pt.  2,  393. 

1840 ;  July  13/25 :  St.  Petersburg.  Convention.  Austria  &  Russia. 
Arts.  1,  2,  5 :  Freedom  of  Transit  throughout  course  for  all 
vessels  enjoying  commercial  navigation  of  Black  Sea.  Cussy/ 
Martens,  Rec.  Man.  Ser.  I,  V,  52;  GB:  BFSP,  Vol.  28,  1060; 
Hertslet,  Europe,  1018 ;  Martens,  Rec.  Russ.,  IV,  pt.  1,  487 ;  Mar- 
tens, NRG,  SER.  I,  I,  209 ;  Neumann,  RTA,  IV,  460 ;  Sturdza, 
Rec.    Doc,   7.     (Commentary:    GEFFCKEN,    La    Question    du 


190  EUEOPE 

Danube 

Danube,  7 ;  HOLLAND,  European  Concert  in  the  Eastern  Ques- 
tion, pg.  229;  SCHUYLER,  American  Diplomacy,  353.) 
(NOTE:  Correspondence  between  Great  Britain  and  Eussia 
concerning  obstructions  to  navigation  in  the  Sulina  Chaimel; 
1849-53;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  44,  417.) 

1850 ;  Nov.  1/13 :  Vienna.  Protocol  of  Conference.  Austria/Russia. 
Prolonging  Convention  of  July  13/25,  1840,  governing  naviga- 
tion. Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man.  SER.  I,  VI,  433;  GB.  BFSP, 
Vol.  39,  104;  Hertslet,  Europe,  1142;  Neumann,  RTA,  V,  265. 

1851;  Dec.  2:  Vienna.  Treaty.  Austria/Bavaria.  Arts.  1-17: 
Freedom  of  Navigation,  including  Danubian  tributaries.  Cussy/ 
Martens,  Rec.  Man.  SER.  I,  VI,  655;  Martens,  Vol.  16,  NRG, 
SER.  I,  part  2,  pg.  63;  Neumann,  RTA,  V,  448-54;  Sturdza, 
Rec.  Doc,  609.  (Commentary:  HOLLAND:  European  Con- 
cert, 229.) 

1853;  June  18/30:  Munich.  Declaration,  Bavaria/Russia.  Arts.  I, 
II :  Stipulating  that  Bavarian  vessels  shall  enjoy  same  freedom 
of  navigation  as  Austrian  in  Russian  dominions;  that  Russian 
vessels  in  Bavarian  fluvial  territory  shall  have  identical  priv- 
ileges as  Austrian.  Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  SER.  I,  VII, 
245;  Neumann,  RTA,  VI  n.  s.,  516. 

1853;  Nov.:  Bucharest.  Declaration.  Russian  Government  of  Wal- 
lachia.  Regulating  neutral  navigation  during  Turko-Russian 
War.     Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  IX,  684. 

1854 ;  Aug.  8 :  Vienna.  Agreement.  Austria/Great  Britain.  Sect.  2, 
Navigation.     Hertslet,  Europe,  1216,  1218. 

1854;  Dec.  28:  Memorandum.  Austria,  France,  Great  Britain.  Sect. 
2.  Presented  to  the  Russian  Government  respecting  navigation. 
Hertslet,  Europe,  1225. 

1855;  Mar.  21/23:  Vienna.  Protocol  of  Conference.  Austria, 
France,  Great  Britain,  Russia,  Turkey.  Freedom  of  Navigation. 
GB.  BFSP :  Vol.  45,  68,  73 ;  Hertslet,  Europe,  1233. 

1855;  June  5:  Vienna.  Protocol.  Austria,  Bavaria,  Wurtemburg. 
Accession  of  Wurtemburg  to  the  Treaty  of  Dec.  2,  1851,  between 
Austria  &  Bavaria  governing  navigation.  Martens,  NRG,  Ser. 
I,  XVI,  pt.  2,  71;  Sturdza,  Rec.  Doc,  618.  (Commentary: 
HOLLAND;  European  Concert,  229.) 

1856 ;  Feb.  25,  28 ;  Mar.  6,  12,  18,  29 :  Paris.  Conference  Protocols. 
Austria,  France,  Great  Britain,  Prussia,  Russia,  Sardinia,  Tur- 
key. Navigation.  Hertslet,  Europe,  1274;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  46, 
pg.  63  (Feb.  25),  67  (Feb.  28),  75  (Mar.  6),  84  (Mar.  12),  90 
(Mar.  18),  114  (Mar.  29). 


EUROPE  191 

Danube 

1856;  Mar.  30:  Paris.  Treaty.  Austria-Hungary,  France,  Great 
Britain,  Prussia,  Eussia,  Sardinia,  Turkey.  Arts.  XV-XXI 
Freedom  of  Navigation.  Clercq,  RTF,  VII,  59 ;  Cussy/Martens 
Rec.  Man.  SEE.  I,  VII,  497;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  46,  8;  Hertslet 
COM.  TR.,  X,  533,  536;  Hertslet,  Europe,  1250,  1257;  Martens^ 
Ree.  Rus.,  XV,  316;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I,  XV,  770;  Sturdza, 
Rec.  Doc,  32.  (Commentary:  ENGELHARDT,  Hist,  du  Droit 
Fluv.  Convent.,  88-91 ;  ENGELHARDT,  Du  Reg.  Convent,  des 
Fleuves  Int.,  169 ;  GEFFCKEN,  La  Question  du  Danube,  11,  19 
HALLECK,  Int.  Law,  I,  187;  HAZEN,  Europe  since  1815,  pg 
615;  HOLLAND,  European  Concert,  230;  LEON  LEVI,  Int 
Law,  51;  MOORE,  Int.  Arb.,  4853;  MOORE,  ILD,  I,  630;  OP 
PENHEIM,  Int.  Law,  I,  228;  PHILLIMORE,  I,  232;  SCHUY 
LER,  Am.  Diplomacy,  352,  353,  356 ;  TWISS,  Law  of  Nations^ 
(Peace),  242;  WESTLAKE,  I,  152.) 

1857;  Jan.  6:  Paris.  Protocol  of  Conference.  Austria-Hungary^ 
France,  Great  Britain,  Prussia,  Russia,  Sardinia,  Turkey.  Reg 
ulating  Navigation  at  Delta  and  Composing  the  Conflicting  Sov 
ereignties  therein.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  47,  92 ;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR. 
X,  553;  Hertslet,  Europe,  1298.  (Commentary:  Correspond 
ence  between  France  &  Great  Britain  concerning  the  Protocol  of 
Paris,  Jan.  6,  1857,  governing  navigation  within  the  Delta 
Jan.  7,  1857.     GB.  BFSP.,  Vol.  56,  691. 

1857;  June  19:  Paris.  Treaty.  Austria-Hungary,  France,  Great 
Britain,  Prussia,  Russia,  Sardinia,  Turkey.  Arts.  II,  IV:  Es- 
tablishment of  Boundaries  in  the  Danubian  Delta;  erection  of 
works  to  facilitate  navigation.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  47,  60 ;  Hertslet, 
COM.  TR.,  X,  960;  Hertslet,  Europe,  1321-22. 

1857 ;  Nov.  7 :  Vienna.  Convention.  Austria,  Bavaria,  Turkey,  Wur- 
temburg.  Arts.  I-XLVII:  Navigation  Regulations.  Annuaire 
des  Deux  Mondes,  1858;  Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  II,  I, 
71;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  57,  786;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I,  XVI,  pt. 
2,  75;  Strudza,  Rec.  Doc.  51.  (NOTE:  This  Navigation  Act 
became  invalid  by  reason  of  the  refusal  of  the  Powers  in  Con- 
ference at  Paris ;  Mar.  22- Apr.  19,  1858 ;  to  accord  it  sanction.) 
(Commentary:  ENGELHARDT,  Hist,  du  Droit  Fluv.  Con- 
vent., 92;  GB.  Pari.  Papers,  1878,  Turkey,  no.  29;  HOLLAND, 
European  Concert,  230;  TWISS,  Law  of  Nations  (Peace),  243; 
WESTLAKE,  Int  Law,  I,  152.) 

1858;  May  22/Aug.  19:  Paris.  Protocol  of  Conferences.  Austria- 
Hungary,  France,  Great  Britain,  Prussia,  Russia,  Sardinia, 
Turkey.     Prolonged  powers  of  the  European  Commission  until 


192  EUEOPE 

Danube 

completion  of  the  works  under  progress.  Hertslet,  Europe,  1327 ; 
Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I,  XVI,  pt.  2,  50.  (Commentary:  HOL- 
LAND, European  Concert,  230;  SCHUYLER,  Am.  Diplomacy, 
354;  WESTLAKE,  Int.  Law,  I,  152-53.) 

1858;  Aug.  19:  Paris.  Treaty.  Austria-Hungary,  France,  Great 
Britain,  Prussia,  Russia,  Sardinia,  Turkey.  Organization  of  the 
United  Principalities  of  Moldavia  &  Wallachia.  Art.  II:  Re- 
newal of  Stipulations  embodied  in  Treaty  of  Paris, —  March  30, 
1856,— concerning  boundaries,  etc.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  48,  70; 
Hertslet,  Europe,  1329-49. 

1859 ;  Mar.  1 :  Agreement.  Vienna.  Austria,  Bavaria,  Turkey,  Wur- 
temburg.  Additional  Articles  affixed  to  the  Navigation  Act  of 
Nov.  7,  1857.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  57,  801;  Sturdza,  Rec.  Doc, 
78.  (NOTE:  The  Paris  Conference  refused  sanction  of  this 
Navigation  Act.) 

1859 ;  Sep.  6 :  Paris.  Protocol.  Austria,  France,  Great  Britain,  Prus- 
sia, Russia,  Sardinia,  Turkey.  Concerning  Navigation.  Hert- 
slet, Europe,  1377,  1379. 

1860 ;  June  27 :  Galatz.  Act  of  European  Commission.  Austria, 
France,  Great  Britain,  Prussia,  Russia,  Sardinia,  Turkey.  Po- 
lice Regulations  governing  Navigation  of  Lower  Danube.  Mar- 
tens, NRG,  Ser.  I,  XVI,  pt.  2,  622. 

1860 ;  July  25 :  Galatz.  Act  of  European  Commission.  Austria, 
France,  Great  Britain,  Prussia,  Russia,  Sardinia,  Turkey.  Tar- 
iff of  Navigation  Dues  applicable  to  the  Sulina  Mouth.  Mar- 
tens, NRG,  Ser.  I,  XVI,  pt.  2,  632. 

1862 ;  Jan.  6 :  London.  Order  in  Council.  British  Government. 
Enforcing  the  Regulations,  Orders,  etc.,  enacted  by  the  Euro- 
pean Commission  governing  the  Navigation  of  the  Danube.  GB. 
BFSP,  Vol.  52,  473. 

1864;  Nov.  21:  Galatz.  Act  of  European  Commission.  Austria, 
France,  Great  Britain,  Prussia,  Russia,  Sardinia,  Turkey.  Pro- 
visional Navigation  &  Police  Regulations.  GB.  BFSP.,  Vol.  54, 
558;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I,  XVIII,  118. 

1864;  Nov.  30:  London.  Order  in  Council.  British  Government. 
Concerning  Navigation  of  Danube.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  54,  890. 

1865 ;  Oct.  26 :  Galatz.  Protocol  of  Conference.  Austria,  France, 
Great  Britain,  Prussia,  Russia,  Sardinia,  Turkey.  Police  & 
Navigation  Regulations  applicable  to  the  lower  course;  establish- 
ment of  Navigation  Dues  to  be  levied  on  vessels  leaving  the 
River.     Clercq,  RTF,  IX,  373;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  55,  87. 

1865;    Nov.    2:    Galatz.     Public    Act.     Commissioners    of    Austria, 


EUROPE  193 

Danube 

France,  Great  Britain,  Prussia,  Russia,  Sardinia  (Italy),  Turkey. 
Navigation  Regulations.  Clereq,  RTF,  IX,  374;  377;  Cussy/ 
Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  II„  I,  344;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  55,  93; 
Hertslet,  COM.  TR,  XII,  884;  924;  Hertslet,  Europe,  3218; 
Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I,  XVIII,  143,  145;  Neumann,  RTA,  IV 
n.  s.,  304;  Sturdza,  Rec.  Doc,  80.  (Commentary:  ENGEL- 
HARDT,  Du  Reg.  Convent.,  176 ;  GEFFCKEN,  La  Question  du 
Danube,  20;  TWISS,  Law  of  Nations,  I,  247.) 

1866 ;  March  10-June  4 :  Paris.  Protocols  of  Conferences.  Austria, 
France,  Great  Britain,  Italy  (Sardinia),  Prussia,  Russia,  Tur- 
key. Ratification  of  Navigation  Regulations  instituted  by  the 
European  Commission  at  Galatz ;  Nov.  2,  1865.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol. 
57,  533;  GB.  Pari.  Papers,  1878,  Turkey,  no.  29,  pg.  22;  GB. 
Pari.  Paps.,  1867,  United  Principalities,  20 ;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser. 
I,  XVIII,  166. 

1866;  Mar.  28:  Paris.  Protocol.  Austria-Hungary,  France,  Great 
Britain,  Italy,  Prussia,  Russia,  Turkey.  Specific  Sanction  of 
Public  Act;  Nov.  2,  1865;  governing  Navigation.  Clereq,  RTF, 
IX,  493;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  56,  624;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR,  Vol.  12, 
919.     (NOTE:     Amended  by  Additional  Act  of  May  28,  1881.) 

1866;  Apr.  9:  Windsor.  Order  in  Council.  British  Government. 
Navigation  of  the  channels  of  the  Danubian  Delta.  GB.  BFSP, 
Vol.  56,  625;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR,  Vol.  12,  920. 

1867;  Apr.  26:  Galatz.  Tariff.  European  Commission.  Tonnage 
Dues  applicable  to  Steam  Vessels.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  58,  527. 

1868 ;  Apr.  16 :  Galatz :  Act.  European  Commission.  Pilotage  Reg- 
ulations.    Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I,  XX,  29. 

1868;  Apr.  30:  Galatz.  Convention.  Austria,  France,  Great  Brit- 
ain, Italy,  North  German  Confederation,  Turkey.  Guaranteeing 
the  Danubian  Loan  for  Rectifying  the  Navigable  Channels. 
Clereq,  RTF,  X,  69 ;  Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  II,  I,  489 ; 
GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  58,  7;  GB.  Pari.  Papers,  1868;  Hertslet,  COM. 
TR.,  XII,  1206;  Hertslet,  Europe,  1838;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I. 
XVIII,  156.  (NOTE:  British  Parliament  sanctioned  the  ex- 
ecution of  this  Convention  by  H.  M.  Government;  Stat.  31  &  32 
Victoria,  c.  126.) 

1868;  July  31:  London.  Act.  British  Parliament.  Providing  for 
the  Execution  of  the  Convention  of  Galatz ;  Apr.  30,  1868.  GB. 
BFSP,  Vol.  58,  71;  GB.  Statutes,  31  &  32  Victoria  cap.  126; 
Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  12,  1215. 

1868;  Oct.  29:  Galatz.    Protocol.    European  Commission.     Concern- 


194  EUROPE 

Danube 

ing  adequate  guarantees  for  a  loan;  works  of  rectification. 
Clercq.  KTF,  X,  213. 

1869;  Jan./Feb. :  International  Act,  signed  by  each  Power  individ- 
ually: France,  Jan.  19;  Great  Britain,  Feb.  6;  Italy,  Jan.  12; 
Prussia,  Jan.  25;  Turkey,  Dec.  30,  1868,  Guaranteeing  loan  for 
the  improvement  of  the  navigable  channels  &  the  Sulina  mouth. 
Clercq,  RTF,  X,  255. 

1869;  Apr.  21:  Buda-Pest.  Act.  Hungarian  Government.  Regu- 
lations governing  Navigation  of  Inland  Waterways  issued  by  the 
Hungarian  Minister  of  Commerce.     Sturdza,  Rec.  Doc,  621. 

1869;  Oct.  30:  Galatz.  Act.  European  Commission.  Pilotage  Reg- 
ulations on  the  Lower  Danube.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  60,  445. 

1869 ;  Nov.  2 :  Galatz.  Agreement.  European  Commission  &  Turkey. 
Repayment  of  Funds  advanced  by  the  Turkish  Government  to  the 
European  Commission.     Clercq,  RTF,  X,  316. 

1870;  Nov.  8/9:  Galatz.  Act.  European  Commission.  Modifica- 
tions of  Act  of  Nov.  2,  1865 ;  Navigation  and  Police  Regulations ; 
Schedule  of  Dues  payable  by  outbound  vessels  at  Sulina  Mouth. 
GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  62,  540;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR,  XIII,  847,  876, 
889;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I,  XX,  40. 

1871;  Jan.  17/Mar.  14:  London.  Protocols  of  Conferences;  nos.  1-6. 
Austria,  France,  Germany,  Great  Britain,  Italy,  Russia,  Turkey. 
Navigation  of  the  Channels  of  the  Danubian  Delta.  GB.  BFSP, 
Vol.  61,  1193;  Hertslet,  Europe,  1926. 

1871 ;  Mar.  13 :  London.  Treaty.  Austria-Hungary,  France,  Ger- 
many, Great  Britain,  Italy,  Russia,  Turkey.  Arts.  IV-VlI: 
General  Revision  of  the  Stipulations  of  the  Treaty  of  Paris; 
March  30,  1856;  relating  to  Navigation;  the  European  Commis- 
sion; the  Riverain  Commission;  &  Neutrality.  Clercq,  RTF, 
X,  461;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  61,  7;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR,  Vol.  13, 
746 ;  Hertslet,  Europe,  1919,  1922 ;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I,  XVIII, 
303;  Sturdza,  Rec.  Doc,  108.  (Commentary:  ENGEL- 
HARDT,  Hist,  du  Droit  Fluv.  Convent.,  pg.  93;  GEFFCKEN, 
La  Question  du  Danube,  19;  HALLECK,  Int.  Law,  I,  187; 
HOLLAND,  European  Conceert,  231;  MOORE,  ILD,  I,  630; 
SCHUYLER,  Am.  Diplomacy,  356;  TWISS,  Law  of  Nations 
(Peace),  243.) 

1871;  Nov.  1/4:  Galatz.  Act.  European  Commission.  Navigation 
&  Police  Regulations  on  Lower  Course.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  62, 
1213. 

1874 ;  Aug.  31 :  Vienna.  Law.  Austrian  Government.  Regulations 
governing  Danubian  Navigation  issued  by  the  Austrian  Min- 
istry of  Commerce.     Sturdza,  Rec.  Doc,  661. 


EUROPE  195 

Danube 

1876;  Nov.  10:  Galatz,  Act.  European  Commission;  representing 
Austria-Hungary,  France,  Germany,  Great  Britain,  Italy,  Kus- 
sia,  Turkey.  Police  &  Navigation  Kegulations;  collection  of 
dues  on  fluvial  traffic  through  Sulina  Mouth.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol. 
67,  639 ;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  in,  572,  604. 

1877;  May  6/31:  Correspondence.  Austria-Hungary,  Russia,  Tur- 
key; Vienna,  May  6;  St.  Petersburg,  Apr.  30/May  12;  Vienna, 
May  22 ;  Constantinople,  May  31.  Concerning  protection  of  neu- 
tral rights  of  fluvial  navigation  pending  Crimean  War.  Mar- 
tens, NRG,  Ser.  II,  III,  201. 

1877;  Aug.  17:  Galatz.  Notification.  European  Commission. 
Adoption  of  Tonnage  Measurement  as  instituted  by  Great  Brit- 
ain on  Suez  Canal  for  employment  on  Danube;  effective  Jan.  1, 
1878.     Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  XIV,  1169. 

1878;  Feb.  19/Mar.  3:  San  Stephano.  Treaty.  Russia  &  Turkey. 
Art.  XIII:  Removal  of  Obstructions  in  the  Sulina  Mouth. 
Hertslet,  Europe,  2672,  2675.  (NOTE:  All  but  twelve  of  the 
twenty-nine  articles  of  this  treaty  were  abrogated  by  the  Treaty 
of  Berlin,  1878.  Article  XIII  continued  in  force.  HOLLAND, 
European  Concert,  222.) 

1878;  June  26/ July  8:  Berlin.  Provisional  Agreement.  Austria  & 
Servia.  Providing  for  the  Improvement  of  the  Navigable  Chan- 
nel through  the  Iron  Gates.  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  VIII,  319 ; 
XIV,  277;  Sturdza,  Rec.  Doc,  125. 

1878;  July  13:  Berlin.  Treaty.  Austria-Hungary,  France,  Ger- 
many, Great  Britain,  Italy,  Russia,  Turkey.  Arts.  52-57 :  Reg- 
ulating Danubian  Navigation  from  the  Iron  Gates  to  Galatz. 
Clercq,  RTF,  XII,  316;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  69,  749;  GB.  For.  Of- 
fice, Danube,  1882,  no.  2 ;  GB.  For.  Office,  Turkey,  1878,  no.  29 ; 
GB.  Pari.  Sess.  Papers,  1878,  vol.  82 ;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  XIV, 
1175-76;  Hertslet,  Europe,  2759;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  III, 
449;  Sturdza,  Rec.  Doc,  123.  (Commentary:  ENGELHARDT, 
Hist,  du  Droit  Fluv.  Convent.,  93-94;  GEFFCKEN,  La  Ques- 
tion du  Danube,  24;  HOLLAND,  European  Concert,  221; 
MOORE,  Int.  Arb.,  4853;  MOORE  ILD,  I,  631;  SCHUYLER, 
Am.  Diplomacy,  357-63;  TWISS,  Law  of  Nations  (Peace), 
244-45.) 

1879;  Jan.  27/Feb.  8:  Constantinople.  Agreement.  Russia  &  Tur- 
key. Russia  relieved  of  all  obligation  for  interruption  of  navi- 
gation on  Danube  during  the  recent  war.  Hertslet,  Europe, 
2845,  2850. 

(NOTE:     1879;   Nov.   10:   Galatz.     Convention.    Austria-Hungary, 


196  EUROPE 

Danube 

France,  Germany,  Great  Britain,  Italy,  Kussia,  Turkey.  Internal 
Regulations  governing  the  Sessions  of  the  European  Commis- 
sion.   Martens,  NEG,  Ser.  II,  IX,  712.) 

1880;  Nov.  29:  Galatz.  Regulation.  European  Commission.  (Aus- 
tria-Hungary, France,  Germany,  Great  Britain,  Roumania,  Rus- 
sia, Turkey.)  Stipulating  the  Duties  &  Privileges  of  the  Bureau 
of  Verification  at  the  Port  of  Sulina.  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II, 
IX,  717. 

(Commentary: 

(1880;  Sept./Dec. :  Correspondence.  Bulgaria  &  Great  Britain.  Re- 
lating to  alleged  violations  of  Art.  XI  &  Art.  LII  of  the  Treaty 
of  Berlin;  July  13,  1878.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  72,  1226. 

1881;  May  19:  Galatz.  Act.  European  Commission.  Navigation  & 
Police  Regulations  applicable  from  Galatz  to  the  Black  Sea. 
GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  78,  325;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  XV,  878;  Mar- 
tens, NRG,  Ser.  II,  IX,  254;  Sturdza,  Rec.  Doc,  136.  (NOTE: 
These  regulations  were  modified  by  decisions  of  the  European 
Commission  of  May  23,  1882 ;  May  19,  1883 ;  Nov.  10,  1883 ;  Nov. 
16,  1883;  and  were  supplanted  by  the  Regulations  of  Nov.  18, 
1887.    Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  XVII,  878.) 

1881;  May  28:  Galatz.  Additional  Act.  European  Commission. 
Supplementing  the  Navigation  Regulations  of  Nov.  2,  1865,  for 
the  Government  of  Navigation  within  the  Danubian  Delta. 
Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  II,  III,  276;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol. 
72,  7;  GB.  For.  Office,  1882,  no.  1;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  XV, 
424,  427;  Hertslet,  Europe,  3053-60;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II, 
Vni,  207;  IX,  253;  Sturdza,  Rec.  Doc,  189.  (Commentary: 
TWISS,  Law  of  Nations  (Peace),  247.) 
1882;  Feb.  10/22:  Belgrade.  Convention.  Austria  &  Servia.  Arts. 
1-27:  Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation  on  Danube  and  na- 
vigable Tributary  Waters,  whether  natural  or  artificial.  GB. 
BFSP,  Vol.  73,  pg.  519;  Neumann,  RTA,  XI,  1441;  Sturdza, 
Rec.  Doc,  843. 

1882;  June  2:  Galatz.  Act.  European  Commission.  Navigation 
Regulations  establishing  Police  Surveillance  from  the  Iron  Gates 
to  Ibraila.    Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  IX,  344. 

1882;  Nov.  16:  Galatz.  Act.  European  Commission.  (Austria- 
Hungary,  France,  Germany,  Great  Britain,  Italy,  Roumania, 
Russia,  Turkey.)  Regulating  the  imposition  of  Sanitary  Taxes 
on  Navigation  through  the  Sulina  Mouth.  Martens,  NRG,  Ser. 
II,  X,  614. 


EUROPE  197 

Danube 

1883;  Feb.  8/Mar.  10:  London.  Protocols  of  Conferences.  Powers 
signatory  to  the  Treaty  of  Berlin,  July  13,  1878 :  Austria-Hun- 
gary, France,  Germany,  Great  Britain,  Italy,  Kussia,  Turkey. 
Respecting  adequate  supervision  of  navigation.  Clercq,  RTF, 
XIV,  141;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  74,  1231;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II, 
IX,  346. 

1883;  Mar.  10:  London.  Convention.  Austria-Hungary,  France, 
Germany,  Great  Britain,  Italy,  Russia,  Turkey.  Amplifying  the 
Navigation  &  Police  Regulations  between  the  Iron  Gates  & 
Ibraila;  prolonging  the  powers  of  the  European  Commission. 
Clercq,  RTF,  XIV,  178;  Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  II, 
III,  464;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  74,  20;  GB.  For.  Office,  Danube,  1883, 
no.  5;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR,  XV,  1070;  Hertslet,  Europe,  3104; 
Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  IX,  392 ;  Sturdza,  Rec.  Doc,  478.  (Com- 
mentary: ENCY.  BRITANNICA,  VII,  822;  ENGELHARDT, 
Hist,  du  Droit  Fluv.  Convent.,  95-96 ;  FRANCE,  Affaires  Etran- 
geres,  Ministere  des  Documents  Diplomatiques,  1883,  Navig.  du 
Danube;  Confer,  et  Traite  de  Londres;  GB.  For.  Office,  Danube, 
1883;  no.  1,  Correspondence  concerning  navigation;  no.  2,  Pro- 
tocols of  Conferences  held  at  London;  no.  3,  Despatches  to  H. 
M.  Representatives  Abroad  relating  to  Danubian  Navigation; 
no.  4,  Despatch  from  H.  M.  Commissioner  transmitting  Proto- 
col No.  24,  June  2,  1882;  GB.  PARL.  PAPS.,  Danube,  No.  2, 

1883,  Docs.  Nos.:  c3525;  c3526;  c3527;  c3591;  c3804;  MOORE, 
Int.  Arb.,  4854;  MOORE,  ILD,  I,  631;  TWISS,  Law  of  Nations 
(Peace),  247^9.) 

1883;  Apr.  23:  London.  Declaration  of  the  Powers.  Austria-Hun- 
gary, France,  Germany,  Great  Britain,  Italy,  Russia,  Turkey. 
Respecting  the  Provisional  Continuance  of  the  Powers  of  the  Eu- 
ropean Commission.  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  XVII,  1179;  Mar- 
tens, NRG,  Ser.  II,  X,  616. 

1884;  Jan.  15:  London.  Notification.  British  Representative  of 
the  European  Commission.  Announcing  the  Extinction  of  the 
Danubian  Rectification  Loan  of  1868.  Hertslet,  COM.  TR., 
XVn,  1039,  1040. 

1887;  Nov.  18:  Galatz.  Act.  European  Commission.  Navigation, 
Police  &  Tariff  Regulations,  including  reference  to  the  regula- 
tions of  Dec.  31,  1880;  May  19,  1881;  Nov.  21,  1882;  &  Dec.  2, 

1884.  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  XVII,  878,  909. 

1889 ;  Nov.  19 :  Galatz.  Act.  European  Commission.  Tariff  of 
Navigation  Dues  applicable  to  Traffic  through  the  Sulina  Mouth. 
GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  81,  1295;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  XVIII,  1055. 


198  EUROPE 

Danube 

1891;  May  21:  Galatz.  Act.  European  Commission.  Navigation 
Regulations  for  Lower  Danube.     Sturdza,  Eec.  Doc,  687. 

1891 ;  May  28 :  Galatz.  Act.  European  Commission.  Regulations 
governing  the  Port  of  Sulina  &  the  Police  and  Navigation  of  the 
Danube.     Sturdza,  Rec.  Doc,  714. 

1893;  Apr.  15:  Dresden.  International  Sanitary  Convention.  Aus- 
tria-Hungary, Belgium,  France,  Germany,  Italy,  Luxemburg, 
Montenegro,  Netherlands,  Russia,  Switzerland.  (NOTE:  Ac- 
ceded to  by  Great  Britain,  July  13/15,  1893.  Hertslet,  COM, 
TR.,  XIX,  250.)  Arts.  1,  2;  Annex  2:  Establishing  Sanitary 
Regulations  for  the  Port  of  Sulina  &  Regulating  Movements  of 
Vessels  throughout  the  Navigable  Course  of  the  River  during 
Cholera  Epidemics.  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  XIX,  249;  Sturdza, 
Rec  Doc,  809. 

1897;  May  18:  Venice.  Sanitary  Convention.  Austria-Hungary, 
Belgium,  France,  Germany,  Great  Britain,  Greece,  Italy,  Lux- 
emburg, Montenegro,  Netherlands,  Persia,  Portugal,  Roumania, 
Russia,  Turkey,  Servia,  Spain,  Switzerland.  Title  VII:  Gov- 
erning the  Navigation  of  Inland  Waterways, —  Rivers,  Lakes  & 
Canals;  Title  IX:  Specific  Regulations  for  the  Navigation  of 
the  Danube.     Sturdza,  Rec.  Doc,  812. 

1899;  July  14:  Buda-Pest.  Law.  Hungarian  Government.  Regu- 
lations issued  by  the  Royal  Hungarian  Ministry  of  Commerce 
governing  navigation  &  the  imposition  of  taxes  upon  traffic  be- 
tween Moldova  &  Turnu-Severin.  Sturdza,  Rec.  Doc,  508. 
(Commentary :     BONFILS,  Droit  Int.,  Note  1,  pg.  335.) 

1901;  Feb.  9/22:  Bucharest.  Convention.  Roumania  &  Russia. 
Regulating  Riverain  Fisheries.  Deschamps/Renault,  RIT,  (XX 
Siecle);  Neumann,  RTA,  XX  n.  s.,  493;  Sturdza,  Rec.  Doc, 
825. 

1901;  Nov.  29:  Sofia.  Convention.  Bulgaria  &  Roumania.  Regu- 
latory Measures  for  the  Conservation  of  Riverain  Fisheries. 
Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  XXXIII,  277 ;  Sturdza,  Rec  Doc,  831. 

1902;  Jan.  15:  Bucharest.  Convention.  Roumania  &  Servia.  Reg- 
ulating Riverain  Fisheries.     Sturdza,  Rec  Doc,  834. 

1903;  Jan.  18/31:  Convention.  Hungary/Roumania.  Riverain 
Fisheries  Regulations.     Sturdza,  Rec  Doc,  838. 

1906;  Dec.  23/1907;  Jan.  5:  Bucharest.  Convention.  Roumania/ 
Servia.     Navigation  Regulations.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  101,  573. 

1907 ;  Oct.  8 :  Buda-Pest.  Treaty.  Austria  &  Hungary.  Regulating 
Riverain  Navigation.     Martens,  NRG,   Ser.  Ill,  II,  48,  82,  86. 

1907;   Oct.    16/29:   Bucharest,    Convention.    Roumania   &   Russia, 


EUROPE  199 

Danube 

Eiverain  Fisheries  Kegulations.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  101,  pg.  569; 
Martens,  NEG,  Ser.  Ill,  I,  907. 

1908 ;  Feb.  27/March  11 :  Bucharest.  Convention.  Koumania  &  Ser- 
via.  Kegulating  fisheries  in  that  portion  of  the  Danube  forming 
the  International  Boundary.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  102,  791;  Mar- 
tens, NRG,  Ser.  Ill,  IV,  219. 

1918;  May  6:  Bucharest.  Treaty.  Austria-Hungary,  Bulgaria,  Ger- 
many, Roumania,  Turkey.  Arts.  24,  25,  26:  Regulating  Nav- 
igation; stipulations  governing  transit  of  war-vessels.  Am.  As- 
soc. Intemat.  Concil.,  Pamph.  no.  128,  28-34;  New  York  Times, 
May  9,  1918. 

(NOTE: 

(1918;  Nov.  11:  Senlis.  Armistice.  Germany  &  the  Allied  Powers. 
Art.  XV:  Imposed  the  Abandonment  of  the  terms  provided  by 
the  Treaty  of  Bucharest;  May  6,  1918.)  (N.  Y.  Times;  Nov.  12, 
1918,  pg.  3.) 


DNIEPER 

1686;  May  6:  Moscow.  Treaty.  Poland/Russia.  Art.  Ill:  Ces- 
sion of  territory  on  eastern  bank  to  Russia  (Little  Russia) ; 
Thalweg  constituting  international  boundary.  Koch/Schoell, 
Hist.  Abr.  Tr.,  XIII,  102. 

1818;  Aug  5/17:  St.  Petersburg.  Convention.  Austria  &  Russia. 
Arts.  I,  II,  III:  Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation.  Ctissy/ 
Hauterive,  RTC,  V,  pt.  2,  444;  Martens,  NRT,  IV,  540. 

DNIESTER 

1810;  March  7/19:  Leopoldstadt.  Treaty.  Austria  &  Russia.  Arts. 
2,  3,  4:  Establishing  &  Regulating  Mutual  Liberty  of  Navi- 
gation. Cussy /Hauterive,  RTC,  I,  pt.  2,  175;  Cussy/Mar- 
tens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  I,  Vol.  II;  Martens,  NRT,  1,  254;  Martens, 
RT.  SUPPL.,  V,  252;  Neumann,  RTA,  II,  331;  (Commentary: 
PHILLIMORE,  Int.  Law,  Vol.  1,  232.) 

1812;  May  28:  Treaty.  Russia  &  Turkey.  Art.  IV:  Navigation. 
Martens,  NRT,  III,  299. 

1815;  Apr.  21/May  3:  Vienna.  Treaty.  Austria/Russia.  Art.  24: 
Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation  upon  the  Dniester  and  on  all 
waterways,  whether  natural  or  artificial,  within  boundaries  of 


200  EUROPE 

Dniester 

former  Kingdom  of  Poland.     Cussy/Hauterive,  RTO,  I,  pt.  2, 

183. 
1818;  Aug.  5/17:  St.  Petersburg.     Convention.     Austria  and  Russia. 

Arts.  I,  II,  III:   Stipulations  ensuring  freedom  of  navigation. 

Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  V,  pt.  2,  444;  Martens,  NRT,  IV,  540. 
1829;    July    10:    Radziwilow.     Treaty.     Austria/Russia.     Preamble; 

Art.  Ill:  Thalweg  Boundary.    Hertslet,  Europe,  810-11. 

DOUBS 

1824;  Nov.  24:  Neufchatel.  Agreement.  France,  Neufchatel,  Swit- 
zerland. Preamble;  Arts.  1;  2-6:  Navigation  Regulations. 
Hertslet,  Europe,  720-21. 

1880;  Dec.  28:  Paris.  Convention.  France/Switzerland.  Title  III 
(Arts.  12-27) :  Protecting  and  Regulating  Fisheries  throughout 
riverain  boundary.  Clercq,  RTF,  XIII,  619;  Hertslet,  Europe, 
3252;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  IX,  111. 

1884;  Dec.  9:  Paris.  Convention.  France/Switzerland.  Modifying 
stipulations  concerning  fisheries  in  that  portion  of  Doubs  form- 
ing International  Boundary.     Clercq,  XIV,  428. 

1888;  Apr.  14.  Berne.  Agreement.  France/Switzerland.  Amend- 
ing Convention  of  Dec.  28,  1880,  and  Abrogating  Arrangement 
concluded  at  Paris ;  Dec.  9,  1884.  France,  Journal  Ofiiciel,  Sept. 
1,  1888;  Hertslet,  Europe,  3280;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  XIV, 
410. 

1891 ;  Mar.  12 :  Berne.  Arrangement.  France/Switzerland.  Arts.  I, 
II:  Fishing  in  Frontier  Waters;  modifying  certain  articles  of 
the  Convention  of  Paris,  Dec.  28,  1880.  Clercq,  RTF,  XIX,  62; 
Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  XVIII,  238. 

1891;  July  30;  Berne.  Convention.  France/Switzerland.  Regulat- 
ing Fisheries  in  Boundary  Waters.  Clercq,  RTF,  XIX,  250; 
Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  XVIII,  848;  XXI,  24. 

1904;  Mar.  9:  Paris.  Treaty.  France/Switzerland.  Fisheries 
Regulations.    Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  Vol.  XXXIII,  501. 

1909;  Jan.  20:  Lausanne.  Agreement.  France/Switzerland.  Fish- 
eries Regulations,  supplementing  Convention  of  Paris,  Mar.  9, 
1904.    Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  Ill,  Vol.  V,  318-19. 

DOURO 

1835;  Aug.  31:  Lisbon.  Treaty.  Portugal/Spain.  Reciprocal  Free- 
dom of  Navigation.  (Arts.  1-13).  Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man. 
Ser.  I,  IV,  423;  GB.  BFSP,  XXIII,  1046;  Martens,  NRT.  XIV, 
97;  Olivart,  Colecc.  Tratados,  I,  70-74.  (Commentary: 
MOORE,  Int.  Arb.,  4853;  MOORE,  ILD,  I,  629;  PHILLIMORE. 


EUEOPE  201 

Douro 

Int.  Law,  I,  232).  NOTE :  The  earlier  Treaty  of  August  31,  1829, 
which  provided  for  a  similar  freedom  of  navigation  was  refused 
ratification  by  the  Government  of  Queen  Donna  Maria  II  (Portu- 
gal). 

1840;  May  18/23:  Lisbon.  Convention.  Portugal  and  Spain.  Navi- 
gation Eegulations.  GB.  BFSP,  XXX,  242,  254;  Martens,  NRG, 
Ser.  I,  I,  98 ;  Olivart,  Colecc.  Tratados,  I,  74-96. 

1840 ;  May  23 :  Lisbon.  Law.  Portuguese  Government,  Decree  gov- 
erning imposition  &  collection  of  tariff  duties.  GB.  BFSP, 
XXX,  252, 

1841;  Feb.  23,  Madrid.  Law.  Spanish  Government.  Decree  reg- 
ulating imposition  of  Customs  Duties.     GB.  BFSP,  XXX,  254. 

1866;  Apr.  27:  Lisbon.  Convention.  Portugal/Spain.  Art.  V: 
Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation  throughout  Navigable  Course. 
Art.  VI:  Police  &  Navigation  Regulations.  Olivart,  Colecc. 
Tratados,  IV,  240,  242-44. 

1872 ;  Dec.  20 :  Lisbon.  Treaty.  Portugal/Spain.  Art.  16 :  Partici- 
pation in  Coasting  Trade,  whether  Fluvial  or  Maritime,  ex- 
pressly Forbidden;  Stipulations  of  Treaty  of  Lisbon,  Apr.  27, 
1866,  concerning  Freedom  of  Fluvial  Navigation  explicitly  con- 
firmed.    Olivart,  Colecc.  Tratados,  VII,  315,  322. 

1877;  Jan.  16:  Lisbon.  Agreement.  Portugal/Spain.  Sect.  II,  Arts. 
13-29  &  Addit.  Art. :  Regulations  governing  Fluvial  Navigation 
&  Commerce  in  conformity  with  Convention  of  Lisbon;  Apr. 
27,  1866.     Olivart,  Colecc.  Tratados,  VII,  187,  201-211. 

1885 ;  Oct.  2 :  Madrid.  Convention.  Portugal/Spain.  Sect.  V,  Arts. 
39-54,  56;  Commercial  Navigation  throughout  Course  available 
for  Portuguese  &  Spanish  subjects,  alike;  Discriminatory  Treat- 
ment explicitly  Forbidden.  Olivart,  Colecc.  Tratados,  VIII, 
529,  543-551. 

1887;  Jan.  16:  Agreement.  Portugal  &  Spain.  Navigation  Reg- 
ulations.   GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  68,  145. 

DREWENZ 

1817;   Nov.   11/Oct.   30:   Berlin.     Treaty.     Prussia   &  Russia.     Art. 

XII:  Thalweg  Boundary;  Navigation.     Hertslet,  Europe,  539. 
DRINA 
1882;  Feb.  10/22:  Belgrade.     Treaty.     Austria/Servia.     Arts.  1-27: 

Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  73,  519; 

Neumann,  RTA,  XI,  1441. 

DUNA 

1818;  Aug.  5/17:   St  Petersburg.     Convention.     Austria  &  Russia. 


202  EUROPE 

Diina 

Arts.    I,    H,    in :    Freedom    of    Navigation.     Cussy/Hauterive, 
ETC,  V,  pt.  2,  444.     Martens,  NET,  IV,  540. 

ELBE 

1660;  Feb.  13:  Whitehall.  Treaty.  Denmark/Great  Britain.  Art. 
XVII:  English  vessels  to  enjoy  exemption  from  tolls  between 
Port  of  Gluekstadt  &  the  sea.     Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  I,  183. 

1670 ;  July  11 :  Copenhagen.  Treaty.  Denmark/Great  Britain.  Art. 
XXI:  Exemption  from  tolls  provided  for  English  vessels  and 
their  cargoes.  Hertslet,  COM.  TK,  I,  195.  (NOTE :  The  Pro- 
visions of  Art.  XVII  of  the  Treaty  of  Feb.  13,  1660,  and  of  Art. 
XXI  of  the  Treaty  of  July  11,  1670,  were  renewed  by  the  Thir- 
teenth Article  of  the  Treaty  of  Kiel,  1814.) 

1815 ;  May  18 :  Vienna.  Treaty.  Austria,  Prussia,  Russia,  Saxony. 
Art.  XVII:  Applying  the  principles  enunciated  in  Annex  XVI 
of  the  Final  Act  of  the  Congress  to  the  navigation  of  the  Elbe. 
Hertslet,  Europe,  141;  Martens,  NET,  IV,  280-81;  (Comment- 
ary: MOOEE,  Int.  Arb.,  4852;  MOOEE,  ILD,  I,  629;  SCHUY- 
LEE,  Am.  Diplomacy,  350;  TWISS,  Law  of  Nations  (Peace), 
253-54.) 

1815 ;  June  9 :  Vienna.  Final  Act  of  Congress.  Austria,  France, 
Great  Britain,  Portugal,  Prussia,  Eussia,  Spain,  Sweden.  Annex 
IV:  Navigation  Eegulations.  Cussy/Hauterive,  ETC,  I,  pt.  1, 
78 ;  Deschamps/Eenault,  EIT,  I,  319 ;  GB.  BFSP,  II,  162 ;  Herts- 
let.  Europe,  263;  Lagemans,  Netherlands,  I,  no.  30;  Martens, 
NET,  II,  436. 

1819 ;  Aug.  28 :  Dresden.  Convention.  Prussia  and  Saxony.  Art. 
34:  Navigation.     Hertslet,  Europe,  618. 

1821 ;  June  23 :  Dresden.  Treaty.  Anhalt-Dessau,  Austria,  Den- 
mark, Hanover,  Hanseatic  Cities  (for  Hamburg),  Mecklenburg- 
Schwerin,  Prussia,  Saxony.  Arts.  1-33:  Stipulating  Freedom  of 
Navigation  in  conformity  with  the  General  Principles  of  the 
Congress  of  Vienna.  Cussy/Hauterive,  ETC,  I,  pt.  2,  27 
Cussy/Martens,  Eec.  Man.,  Ser.  I,  III,  518;  GB.  BFSP,  VIII 
953,  964;  Hertslet,  COM.  TE,  X,  489;  Hertslet,  Europe,  671 
688;  Doc.  no.  110;  Doc.  no.  Ill;  Martens,  NET,  V,  714;  Neu 
mann,  ETA,  III,  613;  Sturdza,  Eec.  Doc,  596.  (Commentary 
MOOEE,  Int.  Arb.,  4852 ;  MOOEE,  ILD,  I,  629 ;  PHILLIMOEE 
Int.  Law,  I,  232;  TWISS,  Law  of  Nations,  (Peace),  255;  WEST 
LAKE,  Int.  Law,  I,  151.) 

1824;  Sep.  18:  Hamburg.  Protocol.  Anhalt-Dessau,  Austria,  Den- 
mark, Hanover,  Hamburg,  Mecklenburg-Schwerin,  Prussia,  Sax- 


EUROPE  203 

Elbe 

ony.  Revision  of  Navigation  Regulations  by  Riverain  Commis- 
sion in  conformity  with  Art.  XXX  of  the  Treaty  of  Dresden; 
June  23,  1821.     Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  V,  296;  Martens,  NRT, 

VI,  588. 

1828 ;  Feb.  8 :  Declaration.  Riverain  States  of  the  Elbe.  Proclaim- 
ing the  Prolongation  of  the  Convention  of  June  23,  1821,  and  the 
revised  regulations  governing  cargoes.  Cussy/Martens,  Rec. 
Man.,  Ser.  I,  IV,  143;  GB.  BPSP,  XVI,  1265;  Martens,  NRT, 

VII,  547. 

1828;  July  28:  Treaty.  Anhalt-Dessau  (Coethen)  &  Prussia. 
Freedom  from  imposition  of  transit  dues  by  subjects  of  the  Con- 
tracting States.  Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  I,  IV,  174; 
Martens,  RT.  SUPPL.,  XI,  653. 

1831;  May  17:  Treaty.     Accession  of  Anhalt-Bernburg  to  Treaty  of 
July  28,  1828,  between  Anhalt-Coethen,  Anhalt-Dessau,  and  Prus- 
sia.    Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  I,  IV,  321 ;  Martens,  NRT 
IX,  365. 

1835;  Aug.  29:  Convention.  Prussia  and  Saxony.  Regulating  Im- 
position of  transit  duties.  Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser  I 
IV,  423;  Martens,  NRT,  XIII,  411. 

1842;  Jan.  15:  Convention.  Belgium  and  Hanover.  Concerning 
Collection  of  the  Stade  Toll.     GB.  BFSP,  XXXI,  861. 

1843;  May  13:  Dresden.  Convention.  Denmark/Hanover.  Regu- 
lating riverain  navigation.  GB.  BFSP,  XXXI,  989;  Martens, 
NRG,  Ser.  I,  V,  292. 

1843;  Aug.  30:  Dresden.  Convention.  Denmark,  Hanover,  Mecklen- 
burg-Schwerin,  Prussia,  Saxony.  Governing  Imposition  of  Stade 
Toll  and  Regulating  Navigation.  Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man. 
Ser.  T,  V,  343;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser,  I,  V,  530.  (Commentary: 
TWISS,  Law  of  Nations  (Peace),  255.) 

1844;  Apr.  9:  Dresden.  Treaty.  Hamburg/Hanover.  Navigation 
Regulations.     Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I,  VI,  370. 

1844;  Apr.  13:  Dresden.  Treaty.  Anhalt-Bernberg,  Anhalt- 
Coethen,  Anhalt-Dessau,  Austria,  Hamburg  (Free  City),  Han- 
over, Lubeck  (Free  City),  Mecklenburg-Schwerin,  Prussia, 
Saxony.  Arts.  1-V;  VII:  Additional  Regulatory  Stipulations 
modifying  Treaty  of  Dresden;  June  23,  1821;  governing  Naviga- 
tion and  the  Imposition  of  the  Stade  Toll.  Art.  VI:  Annulled 
Art.  XV  of  Treaty;  June  23,  1821.  Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man 
Ser.  I,  V,  387;  GB.  BFSP,  XXXII,  20,  22,  24;  Hertslet,  Europe, 
1036;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I,  VI,  463,  473.  (Commentary: 
PHILLIMORE,  Int.  Law,  I,  232.) 


204  EUROPE 

Elbe 

1844;  Apr.  13:  Dresden.  Treaty.  (Separate  Convention).  Den- 
mark &  Hanover.  Imposition  of  Stade  Toll.  GB.  BFSP, 
XXXV,  1009. 

1844;  Apr.  14:  Dresden.  Additional  Act.  Confirmed  by  Riverain 
States  signatory  to  Treaty  of  April  13,  1844.  Cussy/Martens, 
Rec.  Man.  Ser.  I,  V,  383;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I,  VI,  386. 

1844;  July  22:  London.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/Hanover.  Art.  VI: 
British  Vessels  placed  upon  Identical  Footing  with  regard  to  Im- 
position of  Stade  (Brunhausen)  Toll  as  Vessels  of  the  Riverain 
States  signatory  to  the  Treaty  of  Dresden;  Apr.  13,  1844.  GB. 
BFSP,  XXXII,  8 ;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  VII,  729,  732 ;  Hertslet, 
Europe,  1041.  (NOTE :  Abrogated  by  Treaty  of  Hanover ;  June 
22,  1861.     Clercq,  RTF,  VIII,  288.) 

1844;  Sept.  8:  Hanover.  Law.  Hanoverian  Government  Ordinance 
providing  for  the  Reduction  of  the  Stade  Toll  on  Vessels  & 
Cargoes  of  Great  Britain,  Germany,  Belgium,  Mexico,  Prussia, 
Sweden  and  Norway,  and  the  United  States  of  America.  GB. 
BFSP,  XXXII,  868. 

1844;  Sept.  26:  Hanover.  Law.  Hanoverian  Government.  Ordi- 
nance providing  for  the  Reduction  of  the  Stade  Toll  on  Vessels 
and  Cargoes  of  Belgium,  Denmark  and  Hamburg.  GB.  BFSP, 
XXXII,  869. 

1851 ;  Dec.  2 :  Protocol.  Riverain  States :  Anhalt-Bernburg,  Anhalt- 
Coethen,  Anhalt-Dessau,  Austria,  Hamburg,  Hanover,  Lubeck, 
Mecklenburg-Schwerin,  Prussia,  Saxony.  Embodying  the  Third 
Revision  of  the  Treaty  of  Dresden;  June  23,  1821;  regulating 
Navigation.     Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man.  Ser.  I,  VI,  695. 

1853;  Dec.  20:  Magdeburg.  Treaty.  Denmark,  Mecklenburg- 
Schwerin,  Prussia,  Saxony.  Riverain  Navigation  Regulations. 
Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  I,  VII,  285. 

1854 ;  Feb.  8 :  Convention.  Anhalt-Bernburg,  Anhalt-Coethen,  An- 
halt-Dessau, Austria,  Hamburg,  Hanover,  Lubeck,  Mecklenburg- 
Schwerin,  Prussia,  Saxony.  Governing  Navigation.  GB. 
BFSP,  Vol.  55,  915;  Neumann,  RTA,  VI,  130. 

1861 ;  Feb.  18 :  Convention.  Hanover.  Belgium  and  Hanover.  Im- 
position of  the  Stade  Toll.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  51,  844;  Martens, 
NRG,  Ser.  I,  XVII,  part  1,  306. 

1861;  June  22:  Hanover.  Treaty.  Austria-Hungary,  Belgium, 
Brazil,  Bremen,  Denmark,  France,  Great  Britain,  Hamburg, 
Hanover,  Lubeck,  Mecklenburg-Schwerin,  Netherlands,  Portugal, 
Prussia,  Russia,  Spain,  Sweden  and  Norway.  Abolishing  the 
Stade  (Brunhausen)  Toll.    Olercq,  RTF,  VIII,  288;  Cussy/Mar- 


'  EUROPE  205 

Elbe 

tens,  Eec.  Man.,  Ser.  II,  I,  189;  GB.  BFSP.  Vol.  51,  27,  32; 
Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  XI,  355;  Hertslet,  Europe,  1471,  1474; 
Lagemans,  Netherlands,  Vol,  5,  Doc.  no.  406;  Martens,  NE.G, 
Ser.  I,  Part  1,  XVII,  406,  419,  424;  Neumann,  RTA,  III,  n.  s.,  24. 
(Commentary:  HEFFTER,  Droit  Int.  Public,  sec.  77,  note  10; 
TWISS,  Law  of  Nations  (Peace),  255;  WESTLAKE,  Int.  Law, 
I,  161.) 

1861;  Nov.  6:  Berlin.  Treaty.  Hanover  and  the  United  States. 
Arts.  I-VI :  Abolishing  the  Stade  Toll.  GB.  BFSP.  Vol.  51,  490 ; 
Malloy,  UST,  899.  (Commentary:  SCHUYLER,  Am.  Diplo- 
macy, 351;  WESTLAKE,  Int.  Law,  I,  161.) 

1863;  Apr.  4:  Convention.  Riverain  States.  Providing  for  the  Ad- 
ministration &  Collection  of  the  Joint  Elbe  Tolls  at  Witten- 
berg.    GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  55,  938,  958. 

1870;  June  22:  Vienna.  Treaty.  Austria/Germany.  Abolishing 
Navigation  Dues.  Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man,  Ser.  II,  II,  45; 
GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  63,  594;  Hertslet,  Europe,  1875;  Martens,  NRG, 
Ser.  I,  XX,  345;  Neumann,  RTA,  VII  n.  s.,  76. 

1871;  Apr.  16:  Berlin.  Constitution.  German  Empire.  Art.  54: 
Navigation  of  Inland  Waterways.  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions, 
I,  343. 

1881;  Dec.  12:  Notification.  Hamburg.  Concerning  Navigation  & 
the  Authority  of  the  German  Customs  Union.  GB.  BFSP, 
Vol.  72,  1191. 

1908;  Nov.  14:  Berlin.  Treaty.  Hamburg  and  Prussia.  Providing 
for  the  Improvement  of  the  Navigable  Channels.  Martens, 
NRG,  Ser.  Ill,  IV,  844. 

ELSTEE 

1815 ;  June  9 :  Vienna.  Treaty.  (Final  Act  of  the  Congress).  Aus- 
tria, France,  Great  Britain,  Portugal,  Prussia,  Russia,  Spain, 
Sweden.  Art.  XV:  Navigation;  Thalweg  Boundary.  Cussy/ 
Hauterive,  RTC,  I,  pt.  1,  78 ;  Desch amps/Renault,  RIT,  I,  319 ; 
GB.  BFSP,  II,  162;  Hertslet,  Europe,  222;  Lagemans,  Nether- 
lands, I,  Doc.  no.  30;  Martens,  NRT,  II,  436. 

EMS 

1815 ;  May  29 :  Vienna.  Treaty.  Hanover  and  Prussia.  Arts.  I ;  V : 
Establishment  of  Boundary;  Freedom  of  Navigation,  subject 
to  certain  tolls  levied  upon  Hanoverian  and  Prussian  Vessels 
alike.     Cussy/Hauterive,  IV,  pt.  2,  401 ;  Hertslet,  Europe,  174-75. 

1815 ;  June  9 :  Vienna.    Final  Act  of  the  Congress.    Austria,  France, 


206  EUROPE 


Great  Britain,  Portugal,  Prussia,  Russia,  Spain,  Sweden.  Arts. 
27,  sec.  3;  30;  118,  sec.  6;  &  Annex  6:  Boundary  and  Naviga- 
tion Regulations.  Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  I,  III,  61; 
74^75;  103;  Hertslet,  Europe,  232-33;  272-75;  Martens,  NRT, 
n,  398. 

1824;  July  2:  Meppen.  Treaty.  Hanover/Netherlands.  Art.  41: 
Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  716. 

1834;  July  11/30:  Agreement.  Hanover/Netheriands.  Establish- 
ment of  buoys  along  navigable  channel.  Lagemans,  Netherlands, 
II,  Doc.  no.  139. 

1843;  Mar.  13:  Berlin.  Treaty.  Hanover/Prussia.  Navigation 
Regulations.  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I,  V,  125.  (Commentary: 
WESTLAKE,  Int.  Law,  I,  151.) 

1871 ;  Apr.  16 :  Berlin.  Constitution.  German  Empire.  Art.  54 : 
Navigation  of  Inland  Waterways.  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions, 
I,  343. 

1896;  Oct.  16:  Berlin.  Treaty.  Germany/Netherlands.  Providing 
for  Works  ensuring  Safety  of  Navigation:  Beacons,  Buoys, 
Lighthouses.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  88,  pg.  468;  Lagemans,  Nether- 
lands, XIII,  Doc.  no.  847;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  XXV,  56. 

ENZA 

1844 ;  Nov.  28 :  Florence.  Treaty.  Austria,  Lucca,  Modena,  Sar- 
dinia, Tuscany.  Art.  IV :  Thalweg  Boundary.  Hertslet,  Europe, 
1048;  1057. 

ESPIERRE  CANAL 

1884;  May  14:  Paris.  Convention.  Belgium/France.  Facilitating 
the  Maintenance  of  the  Canal.     Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  XII,  621. 

FLOSS-GRABEN 

1815 ;  May  18 :  Vienna.     Treaty.     Austria,  Prussia,  Russia,  Saxony. 

Art.    17:    Freedom    of    Navigation;    applying    the    Principles 

enunciated  in  Annex  XVI  of  the  Final  Act.     Hertslet,  Europe, 

141. 
1815 ;  June  9 :  Vienna,     Final  Act  of  the  Congress.     Austria,  France, 

Great  Britain,  Portugal,  Prussia,  Russia,  Spain,  Sweden.     Art. 

15:  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  222. 

FORON 

1816;  Mar.  16:  Turin.  Treaty.  Geneva,  Sardinia,  Switzerland. 
Art.  I,  III :  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  424. 


EUEOPE  207 

Foron 

1819 ;  July  20 :  Frankfort.  Treaty.  Austria,  Great  Britain,  Prussia, 
Eussia.     Art.   41:   Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,   612. 

GARDA  LAKE 

18.59;  Nov.  10:  Zurich.  Treaty.  Austria,  France,  Sardinia.  Art.  I, 
III:  Boundary  established  in  middle  of  the  Lake.  Art.  XVIII: 
Freedom  of  Navigation  instituted.  Hertslet,  Europe,  1393,  1401, 
1403,  1409. 

1860 ;  June  16 :  Peschiera.  Final  Act  of  Demarcation.  Endorsed 
by  the  Military  Commission  appointed  in  conformity  with  the 
Treaty  of  Zurich;  Nov.  10,  1859.     Hertslet,  Europe,  1439. 

1860;  June  16:  Peschiera.  Treaty.  Austria,  France,  Sardinia. 
Formal  Adoption  of  Boundary  endorsed  by  the  Military  Com- 
mission.    Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I,  XVII,  part  2,  pg.  5. 

1866;  Oct.  3:  Vienna.  Treaty.  Austria  &  Italy.  Art  IV:  Recti- 
fication of  Boundaries  by  reason  of  the  addition  of  Lombardo- 
Venetia  to  Italy.     Hertslet,  Europe,  1749. 

1867;  Dec.  22:  Venice.  Convention.  Austria/Italy.  Arts.  I,  III, 
VI :  Boundary  agreement ;  Rectification  of  Navigation.  Hertslet, 
Europe,  1833,  1835. 

1883 ;  Aug.  9 :  Riva.  Convention.  Austria  and  Italy.  Regulation 
&  Protection  of  Fisheries.  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  XI,  598; 
Neumann,  RTA,  XII  n.  s.,  1. 

GENEVA  LAKE 

1815;  Mar.  29:  Vienna.     Treaty.     Formed  Annex  XII  of  the  Final 

Act  of  the  Congress ;  June  9,  1815.     Art.  I :  Boundary.    Hertslet, 

Europe,  70. 
1815 ;  June  9 :  Vienna.     Final  Act  of  the  Congress.     Austria,  France, 

Great  Britain,  Portugal,  Prussia,  Russia,  Spain,  Sweden.     Arts. 

80;  118,  sec.   12;  &  Annex  XII:  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe, 

257,  273,  275. 
1815;    Nov.    20:    Paris.     Treaty.     Austria,    France,    Great    Britain, 

Prussia,  Russia.     Art.  I,  sec.  3:  Boundary.     Hertslet,   Europe, 

345. 
1819;  July  20:  Frankfort.     Treaty.     Austria,  Great  Britain,  Prus- 
sia, Russia.     Art.  41:  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  611. 
1880;  Dec.  28:  Paris.     Convention.     France/Switzerland.     Chap.  I, 

Arts.    1-10;    Fisheries    Regulations.     Clereq,    RTF,    XII,    619; 

Hertslet,  Europe,  3252;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  IX,  111. 
1884 ;  Dec.  9 :  Paris.     Convention.     France/Switzerland.     Governing 

Fisheries;   partially   revising   stipulations   of   Treaty   of  Paris; 

Dec.  28,  1880.     Clereq,  RTF,  XIV,  428. 


208  EUROPE 

Geneva  Lake 

1887 ;  July  9 :  Paris.  Convention,  France/Switzerland.  Navigation 
Regulations.     Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  XIV,  357. 

1888;  Apr.  14:  Berne.  Agreement.  France/S\vitzerland.  Abrogat- 
ing Convention  of  Paris;  Dec.  9,  1884;  modifying  further  the 
Convention  of  Paris  of  Dec.  28,  1880;  providing  additional  fish- 
eries regulations.  France,  Journal  Officiel,  Sept.  1,  1888;  Herts- 
let,  Europe,  3280 ;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  XIV,  410. 

1891 ;  Mar.  12 :  Berne.  Convention.  France/Switzerland.  Arts.  I, 
II:  Fisheries  Regulations;  modifying  Arts.  2,  3,  and  8  of  Con- 
vention of  Paris;  Dec.  28,  1880.  Clercq,  RTF,  XIX,  62;  Mar- 
tens, NRG,  Ser.  II,  XVIII,  238. 

1891;  July  30:  Berne.  Agreement.  France/Switzerland.  Addi- 
tional Stipulations  to  the  Convention  of  Dec.  28,  1880,  governing 
fisheries.  Clercq,  RTF,  XIX,  250;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II, 
XVIII,  848;  XXI,  24. 

1902;  Sept.  10:  Paris.  Convention.  France/Switzerland.  Police 
&  Navigation  Regulations.  Text  issued  by  the  Swiss  Govt., 
Berne,  1902.     (NOTE:  In  force  since  Nov.  1,  1902.) 

1904 ;  Mar.  9 :  Paris.  Convention.  France/Switzerland.  Regulat- 
ing Fisheries.     Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  XXXIII,  501. 

1909;  Jan.  20:  Lausanne.  Agreement.  France/Switzerland.  Fish- 
eries Regulations;  supplementing  Convention  of  March  9,  1904. 
Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  Ill,  V,  318. 

(NOTE : 

(1911;  July  24:  Intercantonal  Agreement  regulating  Police  & 
Navigation  on  Lake  Geneva;  approved  by  the  Federal  Council, 
Jan.  30,  1912.     Text  published  at  Lausanne,  1912.) 

(NOTE: 

(1912 ;  May  4,  7,  10,  17  and  June  17 :  Intercantonal  Convention  gov- 
erning Police  &  Navigation  adopted  by  the  Cantons:  Berne, 
Geneva,  Valais,  Vaud.  Text  issued  by  the  State  Chancellor, 
Geneva,  1912.) 

GERA 

1815;     Sept.     22:     Paris.     Convention.    Prussia    &     Saxe-Weimar. 

Art.  VIII :  Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation.    Hertslet,  Europe, 

309. 
1871;   Apr.   16:   Berlin.     Constitution.     German   Empire.    Art.   54: 

Navigation  of  Inland  Waterways.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions, 

I,  343. 


EUROPE  209 

Glan 
GLAN 

1815;  June  9:  Vienna.  Final  Act  of  the  Congress.  Art.  XV: 
Boundary.  Austria,  France,  Great  Britain,  Portugal,  Prussia, 
Russia,  Spain,  Sweden.     Hertslet,  Europe,  229. 

1819 ;  July  20 :  Frankfort.  Treaty.  Austria,  Great  Britain,  Prussia, 
Russia.     Art.  XIII:  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  598. 

GORO 

1815;  June  9:  Vienna.     Final  Act  of  Congress.     Austria,  France, 

Great  Britain,  Portugal,  Prussia,  Russia,  Spain,  Sweden.     Art. 

95,  sec.  4:  Adopted  as  Boundary  between  Austria  and  the  Papal 

States.    Hertslet,  Europe,  264. 

GUADIANA 

1878;     Aug.     6:     Convention.    Portugal     &     Spain.    "Diaro     do 

Governo,"  Aug.  13,  1878. 
1893;  Sept.  27:  Agreement.    Portugal/Spain.     Establishing  Fluvial 

Boundary.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  86,  1301. 
1907;    June    5:    Agreement.     Portugal    &    Spain.     Emplacement    of 

Lights  and  Buoys  in  the  Navigable  Channel.    Martens,  NRG, 

Ser.  Ill,  V,  901. 

HERMANCE 

1815 ;  Mar.  29 :  Vienna.     Treaty.     Formed  Annex  XII  of  Final  Act 

of  the  Congress;  June  9,  1815.     Art.  I:  Boundary.    Hertslet, 

Europe,  70. 
1815;  May  20:  Vienna.     Treaty.     (Formed  Annex  XIII  of  Final 

Act  of  the  Cbngress.)     Austria,  France,  Great  Britain,  Prussia, 

Russia,    Sardinia.     Art.    I;    Annex    BB:    Boundary.     Hertslet, 

Europe,  164. 
1815 ;  June  9 :  Vienna.     Final  Act  of  the  Congress.     Austria,  France, 

Great  Britain,  Portugal,  Prussia,  Russia,  Spain,  Sweden.     Arts. 

80;  118,  sec.  12;  and  Annex  XII:  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe, 

257,  273,  275. 
1816;    Mar.    16:    Turin.     Treaty.     Geneva,    Sardinia,    Switzerland. 

Arts.    I,    II:    Boundary.     Clercq,    RTF,    III,    1-2.    Hertslet, 

Europe,  424-25. 
1819;  July  20:  Frankfort.     Treaty.    Austria,  Great  Britain,  Prus- 
sia, Russia.     Art.  41:  Boundary.    Hertslet,  Europe,  611. 

HONDT 

1795;  May  16:  The  Hague.  Treaty.  France  and  The  Netherlands. 
Art.  18 :  Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation,  including  Affluents. 
Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  II,  pt.  1,  373;  Koch/Schoell,  Hist.  Abr. 


210  EUEOPE 

Hondt 

Tr.,  IV,  293.     (Commentary:  ENGELHAEDT,  Hist,  du  Droit 
Fluv.  Convent.,  51;  SCHUYLER,  Am.  Diplomacy,  346-47.) 

1839;  Apr.  19:  London.  Treaty.  Austria-Hungary,  Belgium, 
France,  Great  Britain,  Netherlands,  Prussia,  Russia.  Annex, 
Art.  IX :  Freedom  of  Fluvial  Navigation.  Hertslet,  COM.  TR., 
V,  354,  359. 

INN 

1779;  May  13:  Tesclien.  Convention.  Austria  &  Bavaria  (The 
Elector  Palatine).  Art.  V:  Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation. 
Hertslet,  Europe,  III,  2012;  Neumann,  RTA,  I,  243-44.  (Com- 
mentary: MOORE,  Int.  Arb.,  4853.) 

1784;  Aug.  31;  Munich.  Treaty.  Austria  &  Bavaria.  Art.  IV: 
Reciprocal  Liberty  of  Navigation,  in  conformity  with  Art.  V 
of  the  Treaty  of  Teschen.  Art.  X :  Exclusive  enjoyment  of  fish- 
eries on  the  respective  sides  of  the  International  Boundary. 
Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  I,  pt.  2,  48. 

1816;  Apr.  14:  Munich.  Treaty.  Austria  and  Bavaria.  Art.  IX: 
Renewal  of  former  stipulations  governing  Navigation  &  Fish- 
eries; adoption,  in  addition,  of  the  principles  proclaimed  by  the 
Congress  of  Vienna.     Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  I,  pt.  2,  51. 

1844;  Jan.  30:  Munich.  Treaty.  Austria  &  Bavaria.  Arts.  1-7: 
Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  1034. 

1850;  Dec.  16:  Munich.  Treaty.  Austria  &  Bavaria.  Arts.  1-2: 
Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  1146. 

1851;  Dec.  2:  Vienna.  Treaty.  Austria  &  Bavaria.  Arts.  1-17: 
Mutual  Liberty  of  Navigation.     Neumann,  RTA,  V,  448-54. 

1866 ;  Nov.  10 :  Vienna.  Declaration.  Rectification  of  the  Navigable 
Channel.     Neumann,  RTA,  IV  n.  s.,  601. 

1877;  Jan.  7:  Vienna.  Law.  Austrian  Government.  Regulating 
Navigation  of  the  Inn  &  its  Afiluents.  Neumann,  RTA,  X, 
n.  s.,  24. 


JACOBS-ELF,  or  WORIEMA 

1826;  May  14:  St.  Petersburg.  Convention.  Russia  and  Sweeden  & 
Norway.  Arts.  2,  9:  Freedom  of  Navigation  &  Fishing. 
Hertslet,  Europe,  745-46. 


EUROPE  211 

Jura 
JURA 

1779;  May  13:  Teschen.  Convention.  Austria  &  Bavaria.  Art. 
V:  Eeciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation.  Hertslet,  Europe,  2012; 
Neumann,  RTA,  I,  243-44. 

KARA-KOURT 

1857;    Jan.    6:    Paris.     Protocol.  Austria,    France,    Great    Britain, 

Prussia,     Russia,     Sardinia,  Turkey.       Bessarabian     Frontier 

Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  1299. 

KONGAMA 

1810;  Nov.  8/20:  Tornea.  Treaty.  Russia  &  Sweden.  Art.  I: 
Thalweg  Boundary.  Arts  II,  IV:  Renewal  of  existing  Freedom 
of  Navigation.  C^ssy/Hauterive,  RTC,  V,  pt.  2,  515.  Hertslet, 
Europe,  2028. 

KONGE-AA 

1864;  Oct.  30:  Vienna.  Treaty.  Austria,  Denmark,  Prussia.  Art. 
V:  Thalweg  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  1632. 

KOUBAN 

1829;  Sept.  14:  Adrianople.  Treaty.  Russia  &  Turkey.  Art.  IV; 
Fluvial  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  817. 

LAHN 

1844;  Oct.  16:  Coblen^.  Treaty.  Hesse,  Nassau,  Prussia.  Provid- 
ing for  Works  of  Rectification  to  facilitate  Navigation.  Mar- 
tens, NRG,  Ser.  I,  VII,  420. 

1871 ;  Apr.  16 :  Berlin.  Constitution.  German  Empire.  Art.  54 ; 
Navigation  of  Inland  Waterways.  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions, 
I,  343. 

LAIBLACH 

1844;  Jan.  30:  Munich.  Treaty.  Austria  &  Bavaria.  Art.  14: 
Fluvial  Boundary.  Arts.  28-29 :  Fisheries  exclusively  reserved 
to  Bavaria.     Hertslet,  Europe,  1034. 

LA  LAIRE 

1814;  May  30:  Paris.  Treaty.  Austria,  France,  Great  Britain, 
Prussia,  Russia.  Art.  Ill,  sec.  7:  Boundary.  Clercq,  RTF,  II, 
418;  Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  I,  pt.  1,  pg.  58;  Hertslet,  COM. 
TR.,  I,  249;  Hertslet,  Europe,  6-8;  Neumann,  RTA,  II,  466. 

1816;  Mar.  16:  Turin.  Treaty.  Geneva,  Sardinia,  Switzerland. 
Art.  I:  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  423. 

1819;  July  20:  Frankfort.  Treaty.  Austria,  Great  Britain,  Prus- 
sia, Russia.    Art.  41:  Boundary.    Hertslet,  Europe,  610. 


212  EUROPE 

Lauter 
LAUTER 

1815;  Nov.  20:  Paris.  Treaty.  Austria,  France,  Great  Britain, 
Prussia,  Russia.  Art.  I:  Boundary.  Hertslet,  Europe,  344-45. 
(NOTE :  Spain  acceded  to  this  Convention,  June  8,  1817.) 

1819;  July  20:  Frankfort.  Treaty.  Austria,  Great  Britain,  Prus- 
sia, Russia.    Art.  V:  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  593. 

1825 ;  July  5 :  Paris.  Convention.  Bavaria  &  France.  Art.  II, 
sec  4 :  Thalweg  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  729. 

LAX-ELF 

1826;  May  14:  St.  Petersburg.  Convention.  Russia  and  Sweden 
&  Norway.     Art.  II:  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  745. 

LECK 

1831 ;  Mar.  31 :  Mainz.     Convention.    Baden,  Bavaria,  France,  Hesse, 

Nassau,  Netherlands,  Prussia.     Preamble:  Navigation.     Clercqt, 

RTF,  IV,  24;  Hertslet,  Europe,  849. 
1844;    Jan.    30:    Munich.     Treaty.     Austria    &    Bavaria.     Arts.    I 

5-12:  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  1034. 
1850;    Dec.    16:    Munich.     Treaty.     Austria    &    Bavaria.     Art.    2 

4-6:  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  1146. 
1868;   Oct.  17:  Mannheim.     Convention.    Baden,  Bavaria,   France; 

Hesse-Darmstadt,  Netherlands,  Prussia.     Art.  I:  Navigation  as 

similated  to  the  Rhine  System.     Hertslet,  Europe,  1849. 

LISCOARTA 

1835;  Mar.  4:  Berlin.  Treaty.  Prussia  and  Russia.  Art.  51: 
Boundary.    Hertslet,  Europe,  955. 

LLIVIA  CANAL 

1868;  July  11:  Bayonne.  Convention.  France  and  Spain.  Arts. 
VII,  VIII,  sect.  2 :  Regulating  the  Use  and  Diversion  of  Waters, 
Establishing  an  International  Supervisory  Commission.  Herts- 
let,  Europe,  1844;  Olivart,  Colecc.  Tratados,  IV,  322-30. 

LUGANO  LAKE 

1882;  Nov.  8:  Berne.     Convention.    Italy/Switzerland.    Regulating 

&  Protecting  the  Fisheries  in  Frontier  Waters.     Martens,  NRG, 

Ser.  II,  IX,  664. 
1901;  Jan.  8:  Rome.     Agreement.    Italy/Switzerland. 
1901;  Jan.  18:  Berne.     Governing  the  Operations  of  the  Customs 

Houses  on  the  Lake.    Deschamps/Renault,  RIT  (XXe  Siecle), 

456. 


EUROPE  213 

Lugano  Lake 

1906 ;  June  13 :  Lugano.  Convention.  Italy/Switzerland.  Protec- 
tion of  Fisheries.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  101,  411;  Martens,  NRG, 
Ser.  II,  XXXV,  471. 

1911;  Feb.  8:  Rome.  Convention.  Italy/Switzerland.  Additional 
Stipulations  to  the  Convention  of  June  13,  1906.  GB.  BFSP, 
Vol.  105,  680. 

LYS 

1713;  Apr.  11:  Utrecht.  Treaty.  France  &  the  United  Provinces. 
Established  Freedom  of  Navigation  on  the  Lys  from  its  con- 
fluence with  the  Deule  to  head  of  navigation ;  stipulating  that  no 
toll  or  imposition  should  be  levied.  Clercq,  RTF,  I,  1,  10. 
(Commentary:  NYS,  Droit  Int.,  I,  476.) 

1714;  Sept.  7:  Baden.  Treaty.  Austria  &  France.  Art.  22:  Free- 
dom of  Navigation;  specific  exemption  from  imposition  of  all 
tolls.  Dumont,  Corps  Univ.  Dipl.,  VIII,  part  1,  436,  439. 
(Commentary:  ENGELHARDT,  Hist,  du  Droit  Fluv.  Convent, 
47;  NYS,  Droit  Int.,  I,  476.) 

1820;  Mar  28:  Courtrai.  Treaty.  France  &  the  Netherlands.  Art. 
I:  Boundary.  Arts.  V,  VI:  Navigation  Regulations.  Clercq, 
RTF,  III,  223;  Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  I,  pt.  1,  241;  Hertslet, 
Europe,  624-25. 

MAGGIORE  LAKE 

1814;  May  30:  Paris.  Treaty.  Austria,  France,  Great  Britain,  Prus- 
sia, Russia.  Separate,  Secret  Art.  II:  Boundary.  Hertslet, 
Europe,  18. 

1834 ;  Dec.  4 :  Turin.  Treaty.  Austria/Sardinia.  Arts.  1-24 :  Sup- 
pression of  Contraband  Trade  aboard  Vessels  navigating  the 
Lake.     Martens,  NRT,  XIII,  198-205. 

1851 ;  Nov.  22 :  Turin.  Convention.  Austria/Sardinia.  Regulations 
for  Repression  of  Contraband  aboard  Vessels  navigating  the  Lake. 
Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  I,  VI,  649.  (Commentary: 
FIORE,  Droit  Int.  Publ.,  II,  80,  sec.  796.) 

1852;  Jan.  19:  Milan.  Agreement.  Austria/Sardinia.  Relating  to 
mooring  by  Sardinian  Steam  Vessels.  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I, 
XVI,  pt.  1,  198. 

1860 ;  Apr.  25 :  Locarno.  Convention.  Sardinia  &  Switzerland. 
Navigation  Regulations.     Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I,  XX,  161. 

1882 ;  Nov.  8 :  Berne.  Convention.  Italy/Switzerland.  Regulating 
&  Protecting  the  Fisheries.     Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  IX,  564. 

1901;  Jan.  8:   Rome.     Agreement.     Italy/Switzerland. 

1901;  Jan.  18:  Berne.    Governing  the  Operations  of  the  Customs 


214  EUROPE 

Maggiore    Lake 

Houses  on  the  Lake.  Deschamps/Renault,  RIT  (XXe  Siecle), 
456. 

1906 ;  June  13 :  Lugano.  Convention.  Italy/Switzerland.  Protec- 
tion of  Fisheries.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  101,  411;  Martens,  NEG, 
Ser.  II,  XXXV,  471. 

1911 ;  Feb.  8 :  Rome.  Convention.  Italy/Switzerland,  Additional 
Stipulations  to  the  Convention  of  June  13,  1906.  GB.  BFSP, 
Vol.  105,  680. 

MAGRA 

1844 ;  Nov.  28 :  Florence.  Treaty.  Austria,  Lucca,  Modena,  Sardinia, 
Tuscany.  Arts.  5,  9 :  Demarcation  of  Boundary.  Hertslet,  Eu- 
rope, 1052,  1057. 

MAIN 

1804;  Aug.  15:  Paris.  Convention.  France  &  Germany.  Art.  24: 
Navigation.  Clercq,  RTF,  II,  91 ;  Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  I,  pt. 
1,  125;  Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  I,  II,  314;  Martens,  RT, 
VIII,  268.  (Commentary:  ENGELHARDT,  Hist,  du  Droit 
Fluv.  Convent.,  62.) 

1810;  Sept.  8:  Paris.  Treaty.  Baden  &  Hesse-Darmstadt.  Art.  V. 
Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  I,  pt.  2,  227;  Martens,  RT.  SUPPL.,  V, 
280. 

1815 ;  March  20 :  Vienna.  Treaty.  Formed  Annex  XVI  of  the  Final 
Act.  Freedom  of  Navigation.  GB.  BFSP,  II,  178;  Hertslet, 
Europe,  91;  Martens,  NRT,  II,  447. 

1815 ;  June  9 :  Vienna.  Final  Act  of  the  Congress.  Arts.  117,  118, 
sec.  11,  &  Annex  XVI :  Freedom  of  Navigation ;  Forced  Anchor- 
age &  Trans-shipment  of  Cargoes  Abolished.  Cussy-Hauterive, 
RTC,  I,  pt.  1,  94;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  I,  3,  41;  Hertslet,  Eu- 
rope, 272-73,  276 ;  Neumann,  RTA,  II,  673 ;  Sturdza,  Rec.  Doc, 
2-4.     (Commentary :     MOORE,  ILD,  I,  628.) 

1816 ;  June  29 :  Frankfort.  Convention.  Hesse-Cassel  &  Hesse- 
Darmstadt.  Art.  13:  Obstruction  to  Navigation;  Construction 
of  Bridges.     Hertslet,  Europe,  456. 

1828;  Jan.  18:  Munich.  Treaty.  Bavaria  &  Wurtemburg.  Art. 
XXIX.  Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  I,  pt.  2,  259;  Martens,  NRT, 
VII,  539. 

1835 ;  July  30/Aug.  15 :  Carlsruhe.  Treaty.  Baden,  Hesse,  Wurtem- 
burg. Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  I,  IV,  422;  Martens, 
NRT,  XIII,  412. 

1842 ;  July  1 :  Carlsruhe.  Agreement.  Riverain  States :  Baden, 
Hesse,    Wurtemburg.    Regulating    Navigation.    Cussy/Martens, 


EUEOPE  215 

Main 
Kec.   Man.,   Ser.   I,   V,   189;   Martens,   NRG,   Ser.  I,   IV,   630. 

1866 ;  Aug.  22 :  Berlin.  Treaty.  Bavaria  &  Prussia.  Art.  10 :  Abo- 
lition of  Navigation  Dues.     Hertslet,  Europe,  1714. 

1866;  Sept.  3:  Berlin.  Treaty.  Hesse-Darmstadt  &  Prussia.  Art. 
12:     Transit  Dues  Abolished.     Hertslet,  Europe,  1732. 

1871;  Apr.  16:  Berlin.  Constitution.  German  Empire.  Art.  54: 
Navigation  of  Inland  Waterways.  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions, 
I,  343. 

1906;  Apr.  21:  Berlin.  Convention.  Baden,  Bavaria,  Hesse,  Prus- 
sia. Providing  for  the  Canalization  of  the  Channel.  Martens, 
NRG,  Ser.  Ill,  I,  349. 

MARNE-RHINE  CANAL 

1871;  May  10:  Frankfort.  Treaty.  France  &  Germany.  Art.  V: 
Navigation.     Hertslet,  Europe,  1955,  1957. 

1871;  Dee.  11:  Frankfort.  Convention.  France  &  Germany.  Art. 
14:  Supplementing  the  Stipulations  of  the  Treaty  of  Frankfort; 
May  10,  1871.     Hertslet,  Europe,  1968,  1971. 

1873 ;  Apr.  23 :  Strassburg.  Agreement.  France/Germany.  Govern- 
ing Maintenance  of  the  Canal.     Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  X,  449. 

MEUSE 

1675;  Oct.  25:  Chateau  Freyr-sur-Meuse.  Treaty.  France  &  the 
Spanish  Netherlands.  (Holland  acceded  on  Dec.  17,  1675.)  Art. 
I :  Freedom  of  Fluvial  Transportation, —  except  for  Contraband 
Articles  as  Cannons,  Muskets  and  other  Firearms,  &  similar  Mu- 
nitions of  War,— for  the  Subjects  of  France,  Holland,  &  the 
Spanish  Netherlands.     Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  I,  pt.  1,  226. 

1779 ;  Nov.  18 :  Brussels.  Treaty.  France  &  Hungary.  Art.  XXX : 
Facilitating  Navigation  of  Semoy  &  Meuse.  Hertslet,  Europe, 
2012. 

1785;  Nov.  8:  Fontainebleau.  Treaty.  Austria/Netherlands.  Art. 
VI :  Regulation  &  Protection  of  Navigation.  Hertslet,  Europe, 
2016. 

1792;  Nov.  16:  Law.  Decree  of  the  National  Provisional  Executive 
Council  of  France.  Abolishing  the  Restrictions  instituted  by  the 
Barrier  Conventions;  Treaty  of  Miinster,  January  30,  1648. 
Koch/Schoell,  Hist.  Abr.  Tr.,  IV,  218.  (Commentary :  ENGEL- 
HARDT,  Hist,  du  Droit  Fluv.  Convent.,  50.) 

1795;  May  16:  The  Hague.  Treaty.  France  &  the  Netherlands. 
Art.  18 :  Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation  from  Source  to  the 
Sea  for  the  Contracting  Powers  and  Nations  enjoying  favored 
Treatment.     Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  II,  pt.  1,  373 ;  Koch/Schoell, 


216  EUROPE 

(Meuse 

Hist.  Abr.  Tr.,  IV,  293;  Martens,  RPT,  V,  532.     (Commentary: 
ENGELHARDT,  Hist,  du  Droit  Fluv.  Convent.,  51.) 

1797 ;  Oct.  17 :  Campo  Formio.  Treaty.  Austria/France.  Secret  Ar- 
ticle II:  Liberty  of  Navigation  accorded  French  Vessels,  free 
from  all  tolls,  throughout  Austrian  territory.  Koeh/Schoell, 
Hist.  Abr.  Tr.,  V,  55;  Martens,  RPT,  VII,  209;  Martens,  RT,  VI, 
426,  428 ;  Univ.  of  Penn.,  Transl.  &  Reprints,  II,  no.  2,  pg.  5. 

1801;  Feb.  9:  Luneville.  Treaty.  France/Germany.  Free  Naviga- 
tion of  Rhine  &  its  Affluents  for  Co-Riparians.  Martens,  RPT, 
VII,  538-544;  Martens,  RT,  VII,  296-302.  (Commentary: 
SCHUYLER,  Am.  Diplomacy,  346-47.) 

1815;  Mar.  20:  Vienna.  Treaty.  Formed  Annex  XVI  of  the  Final 
Act.  Arts.  1,  4,  5,  6:  Freedom  of  Navigation.  Hertslet,  Eu- 
rope, 91-92;  Martens,  NRT,  II,  447.  (Commentary:  KLUBER, 
Actes  du  Cong,  de  Vienne,  III,  239.) 

1815 ;  June  9 :  Vienna.  Final  Act  of  the  Congress.  Austria,  France, 
Great  Britain,  Portugal,  Prussia,  Russia,  Spain,  Sweden.  Arts. 
117;  118,  sec.  16;  &  Annex  XVI:  Freedom  of  Navigation; 
Forced  Anchorage  &  Trans-shipment  of  Cargoes  Abolished. 
Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  I,  pt.  1,  94;  GB.  BFSP,  II,  178 ;  Hertslet, 
COM.  TR,  I,  3,  41;  Hertslet,  Europe,  272-73,  276;  Neumann, 
RTA,  II,  673;  Sturdza,  Rec.  Doc,  pg.  2.  (Commentary: 
MOORE,  ILD,  I,  628.) 

1831;  Nov.  15:  London.  Treaty.  Austria,  Belgium,  France,  Great 
Britain,  Prussia,  Russia,  Arts.  IX  &  X:  Reciprocal  Freedom 
of  all  Waterways  forming  or  crossing  the  International  Bound- 
ary; subject  only  to  equitable  roaintenance  tolls.  Cussy/Hau- 
terive, ETC,  I,  pt.  2,  283;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  IV,  13,  26,  31; 
Hertslet,  Europe,  864. 

1833 ;  May  21 :  London.  Convention.  France,  Great  Britain,  Nether- 
lands. Art.  IV:  Providing  for  Liberty  of  Commercial  Navi- 
gation to  be  governed,  in  so  far  as  appropriate,  by  the  Conven- 
tion of  Mainz,  May  31,  1831,  regulating  Rhine  navigation.  GB. 
BFSP,  XX,  282;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR,  IV,  353;  Hertslet,  Eu- 
rope, 922. 

1833;  June  1:  Notification.  Given  by  France,  Great  Britain  to  Bel- 
gium. Concerning  the  Accession  of  Belgium  to  the  Convention 
of  London;  May  21,  1833.    Hertslet,  COM.  TR,  V,  21. 

1833;  June  10:  London.  Treaty.  Adhesion  of  Belgium  to  Conven- 
tion of  London;  May  21,  1833.     Hertslet,  COM.  TR,  V,  21,  23. 

1833;  Nov.  18:  Zonhoven.  Convention.  Belgium/Netherlands. 
Navigation  Eeffulations.     Martens,  NRT,  XIII,  134^147. 


EUROPE  21T 

Meuse 

(NOTE:  ~ 

(1833;  November:  Correspondence  between  Belgium  &  the  Nether- 
lands relating  to  the  Navigation  of  the  Meuse.  GB.  BFSP,  XX, 
743;  Martens,  NRT,  XIII,  138.) 

1839 ;  Apr.  19 :  London.  Treaty.  Austria-Hungary,  Belgium,  France, 
Greeat  Britain,  Netherlands,  Prussia,  Kussia.  Art.  IX  &  Annex : 
Mutual  Liberty  of  Navigation.  Clercq,  RTF,  IV,  470-73;  475- 
77;  Cussy/Martens,  Eec.  Man.,  Ser.  I,  IV,  575;  Hertslet,  COM. 
TR,  V,  354,  359,  361;  Hertslet,  Europe,  986-998;  Lagemans, 
Netherlands,  Vol.  II,  Doc.  no.  165 ;  Neumann,  RTA,  IV,  416,  421 ; 
Sturdza,  Eec.  Doc,  854-55. 

1839 ;  Oct.  12 :  Maastricht.  Convention.  Belgium  &  the  Netherlands. 
Establishment  of  Sovereignty  in  common  over  Meuse  where  form- 
ing International  Boundary.  Lagemans,  Netherlands,  Vol.  II, 
Doc.  no.  172. 

1842 ;  May  12 :  The  Hague.  Convention.  Belgium/Netherlands. 
Facilitating  Navigation.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  31,  845. 

1842;  Nov.  5:  The  Hague.  Treaty.  Belgium/Netherlands.  Arts. 
50-55 :  Navigation  Regulations.  GB.  BFSP,  XXXI,  815 ;  Hert- 
slet, Europe,  1029-30;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I,  III,  622,  626; 
Sturdza,  Rec.  Doc,  862,  868. 

1843;  May  20:  Antwerp.  Convention.  Belgium  &  the  Netherlands. 
Regulating  Fisheries  &  Navigation;  Concerning  settlement  of 
fluvial  disputes.  Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  I,  V,  306; 
Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I,  V,  294,  306-307,  334,  339,  381. 

1843 ;  Aug.  8 :  Maastricht.  Convention.  Belgium  &  the  Netherlands. 
Art.  12:  Fisheries;  Art.  13;  Arts.  35,  36:  Navigation  Regula- 
tions. GB.  BFSP,  XXXV,  1202,  1220-21.  Hertslet,  Europe, 
1031. 

1845;  July  12:  The  Hague.  Convention.  Belgium  &  the  Nether- 
lands. Improvement  of  Meuse  Navigation ;  construction  of  Canal 
between  Liege  &  Maastricht.     Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I,  VIII,  383. 

1846;  July  29:  The  Hague.  Treaty.  Belgium  &  the  Netherlands. 
Navigation  Regulations.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  35,  1222;  Martens, 
NRG,  Ser.  I,  IX,  274. 

1850;  Aug.  8:  The  Hague.  Law  (Royal  Decree).  Netherlands.  Per- 
mitting the  Suppression  of  Navigation  Tolls  as  Established  by 
Law  of  May  20,  1843.  Lagemans,  Netherlands,  Docs.  no.  197; 
no.  243;  no.  244. 

1850 ;  Sept.  5 :  The  Hague.  Convention.  Belgium  &  the  Nether- 
lands.    Concerning   Canalization    of   the   Meuse   between    Liege 


218  EUROPE 

Meuse 

&    Maastricht.     Lagemans,     Netherlands,    III,    Doc.     no.    247. 

1851;  May  8:  Brussels.  Convention.  Belgium  &  the  Netherlands. 
Suppression  of  Transit  Tolls.  Lagemans,  Netherlands,  Vol.  HI, 
Does.  no.  258;  265. 

1851;  Sept.  2:  The  Hague.  Law  (Royal  Decree).  Netherlands. 
Abolishing  Navigation  Dues  in  conformity  with  Law  of  Aug.  8, 
1850.     Lagemans,  Netherlands,  Doc.  no.  265. 

1851;  Oct.  3:  The  Hague.  Agreement.  Belgium  &  the  Netherlands. 
Relating  to  Obstruction  of  "Waterways  affording  access  between 
the  Contracting  Parties.  Lagemans,  Netherlands,  III,  Doc.  no. 
269. 

1852;  Apr.  23:  The  Hague.  Convention.  Belgium/Netherlands. 
Maintenance  &  Protection  of  Banks.  Lagemans,  Netherlands, 
Vol.  IV,  Doc.  no.  282. 

1860 ;  Dec.  11 :  The  Hague.  Convention.  Belgium/Netherlands. 
Regulating  Navigation  by  Steam  Vessels.  Lagemans,  Nether- 
lands, Vol.  V,  Doc.  no.  401. 

1861 ;  Sept.  21 :  Brussels.  Convention.  Belgium/Netherlands.  Arts. 
1-12 :  Establishing  Regulations  governing  Utilization  of  Waters. 
Lagemans,  Netherlands,  V,  Doc.  no.  408,  116-119. 

1863;  May  12:  The  Hague.  Treaty.  Belgium/Netherlands.  Gov- 
erning Diversion  &  Utilization  of  "Waters  from  the  Meuse.  Lage- 
mans, Netherlands,  Vol.  V,  Doc.  no.  432 ;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II, 
I,  117. 

1873;  Jan.  11:  Brussels.  Convention.  Belgium/Netherlands.  Mod- 
ifying Art.  VI  of  the  Treaty  of  The  Hague,  May  12,  1863,  regu- 
lating Diversion  of  Waters.     Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  I,  123. 

1881 ;  Aug.  9 :  Paris.  Agreement.  Belgium/Netherlands.  Establish- 
ing an  International  Telegraph  Line  to  facilitate  Navigation  on 
the  Canalized  Meuse.     Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  VIII,  444. 

1885;  Oct.  31:  The  Hague.  Convention.  Belgium/Netherlands. 
Police  &  Navigation  Regulations;  modifying  the  stipulations  of 
the  Treaty  of  Antwerp,  May  20,  1843.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  76,  416- 
17 ;  Hertslet,  Europe,  3277 ;  Lagemans,  Netherlands,  IX,  Doc.  no. 
701;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  XI,  663. 

MINCIO 

1859;   July   11:    Villa   Franca.     Treaty.     Austria/France.     Thalweg 

Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  1374. 
1859;  Nov.  10:  Zurich.     Treaty.     Austria,  France,  Sardinia.     Arts. 

1,  3,  4,  19,  20:     Thalweg  Boundary;  Obstructions  in  Channel. 

Hertslet,  Europe,  1383-1410. 


EUEOPE  219 

Mincio 

1859;  Nov.  10:  Zurich.  Treaty.  France/Sardinia.  Art.  I:  Thal- 
weg Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  1392. 

1859;  Nov.  21:  Zurich.  Agreement.  Austria,  France,  Sardinia. 
Thalweg  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  1414. 

1860;  June  16:  Peschiera.  Final  Act  of  Demarcation.  Endorsed 
by  the  Military  Commission  appointed  in  conformity  with  the 
Treaty  of  Zurich;  Nov.  10,  1859.     Hertslet,  Europe,  1439,  1443. 

1860;  June  16:  Peschiera.  Treaty.  Austria,  France,  Sardinia. 
Formal  Adoption  of  Thalweg  Boundary  endorsed  by  the  Military 
Commission.     Martens,  NE.G,  Ser.  I,  XVII,  part  2,  pg,  5. 

1866;  Oct.  3:  Vienna.  Treaty.  Austria  &  Italy.  Art.  IV:  Kecti- 
fication  of  Boundaries  by  reason  of  the  addition  of  Lombardo- 
Venetia  to  Italy.     Hertslet,  Europe,  1749. 

MINHO 

1901;  Sept.  14-20;  24:  Agreement.  Portugal  &  Spain.  Kegulating 
the  Mutual  Enjoyment  of  the  Riverain  Fisheries.  Deschamps/ 
Renault,  RIT  (XXe  Siecle),  105. 

MOSELLE 

1797;  Oct.  17:  Campo  Formio.  Treaty.  Austria/France.  Secret 
Article  II:  Freedom  of  Navigation  through  German  territory 
at  Mouth  of  the  River  guaranteed  to  French  Vessels.  Koch/ 
Schoell,  Hist.  Abr.  Tr.,  V,  55 ;  Martens,  RPT,  VII,  209 ;  Martens, 
RT,  VT,  426,  428 ;  Univ.  of  Penn.,  Trans.  &  Reprints,  II,  no.  2,  5. 

(NOTE:  ~~ 

(1773;  Oct.  29:  Convention.  Elector  of  Treves  &  France.  Liberty 
of  Navigation.     Nys,  Droit  Int.,  I,  476.) 

1815 ;  Mar.  20 :  Vienna.  Treaty.  Formed  Annex  XVI  of  the  Final 
Act.  Freedom  of  Navigation.  Hertslet,  Europe,  91 ;  Martens, 
NRT,  II,  447.  (Commentary:  KLUBER,  Actes  du  Cong,  de 
Vienne,  III,  239.) 

1815;  June  9:  Vienna.  Final  Act  of  the  Congress.  Austria,  France, 
Great  Britain,  Portugal,  Prussia,  Russia,  Spain,  Sweden.  Arts. 
117;  118,  sec.  16;  &  Annex  XVI:  Freedom  of  Navigation; 
Forced  Anchorage  &  Trans-shipment  of  Cargoes  Abolished. 
Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  I,  pt.  1,  94;  GB.  BFSP,  II,  178;  Hert- 
slet, COM.  TR.,  I,  3,  41 ;  Hertslet,  Europe,  272-73,  276 ;  Neumann, 
RTA,  II,  673 ;  Sturdza,  Rec.  Doc.  pg.  2.  (Commentary :  MOORE, 
ILD,  I,  628.) 

1816;  June  26:  Aix-la-Chapelle.  Treaty.  Netherlands  &  Prussia. 
Art.  I:     Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  452. 


220  ETJEOPE 

Moselle 

1819 ;  July  20 :  Frankfort.     Treaty.     Austria,  Great  Britain,  Prussia, 

Russia.     Art.  XIII:     Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  597-98. 
1820;    Mar.    28:    Courtrai.     Treaty.     France/Netherlands.     Art.    I: 

Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  625. 
1871;  May  10:  Frankfort.     Treaty.     France/Germany.     Arts.  5,  14: 

Navigation;   Canalization  of  Channel.     Hertslet,  Europe,   1955, 

1957,  1961;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I,  XIX,  688. 
1871 ;  Dec.  11 :  Frankfort.     Convention.     France/Germany.     Art.  14: 

Rectification  of  Navigable  Channel;  supplementing  Stipulations 

of  Treaty  of  Frankfort;  May  10,  1871.     Hertslet,  Europe,  1968, 

1970-71. 

MUONIS;  or  MUONIO 

1810;  Nov.  8/20:  Tornea.  Treaty.  Russia  &  Sweden.  Arts.  II,  IV: 
Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation.  Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  V, 
pt.  2,  515;  Hertslet,  Europe,  2028. 

NAHE 

1815 ;  June  9 :  Vienna.  Final  Act  of  the  Congress.  Austria,  France, 
Great  Britain,  Portugal,  Prussia,  Russia,  Spain,  Sweden.  Art. 
XXV:  Boundary.  Hertslet,  Europe,  229;  Lagemans,  Nether- 
lands, Doc.  no.  30. 

1819;  July  20:  Frankfort.  Treaty.  Austria,  Great  Britain,  Prussia, 
Russia.     Art.  13 :     Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  598. 

NECKAR 

1815;  Mar.  20:  Vienna.  Treaty.  Formed  Annex  XVI  of  the  Final 
Act.  Freedom  of  Navigation.  Hertslet,  Europe,  91;  Martens, 
NRT,  II,  447.  (Commentary:  KLUBER,  Actes  du  Cong,  de 
Vienne,  III,  239.) 

1815 ;  June  9 :  Vienna.  Final  Act  of  the  Congress.  Austria,  France, 
Great  Britain,  Portugal,  Prussia,  Russia,  Spain,  Sweden.  Arts. 
117;  118,  sec  16;  &  Annex  XVI:  Freedom  of  Navigation; 
Forced  Anchorage  &  Trans-shipment  of  Cargoes  Abolished. 
Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  I,  pt.  1,  94;  GB.  BFSP,  II,  178;  Hert- 
slet, COM.  TR.,  I,  3,  41;  Hertslet,  Europe,  272-73,  276;  Lage- 
mans, Netherlands,  I,  Doc.  no.  30;  Neumann,  RTA,  II,  673; 
Sturdza,  Rec.  Doc,  pg.  2. 

1828;  Jan.  IS:  Munich.  Treaty.  Bavaria  &  Wurtemburg  Art.  29. 
Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  I,  pt.  2,  259 ;  Martens,  NRT,  VII,  539. 

1835;  May  12:  Berlin.  Treaty.  Baden,  Bavaria,  Hesse,  Prussia, 
Saxony,    Thuringian    League,   Wurtemburg.     Arts.    15,    16,    17: 


EUEOPE  221 

Neckar 

Keciprocal  Abolition  of  Navigation  Dues.     Martens,  NET,  XIII, 
228,  240-41. 

1835;  July  24:  Convention.  Baden,  Hesse,  Wurtemburg.  Eegula- 
tion  of  Navigation  Tolls.     Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I,  IV,  280. 

1835;  July  30/ Aug.  15:  Carlsruhe.  Convention.  Baden,  Hesse- 
Darmstadt,  Wurtemburg.  Navigation  Regulations.  Cussy/Mar- 
tens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  I,  IV,  422;  Martens,  NRT,  XIII,  412. 

1842;  July  1:  Carlsruhe.  Convention.  Baden,  Hesse-Darmstadt 
Wurtemburg.  Art.  I :  Ensuring  Freedom  of  Navigation ;  Clear- 
ance of  Obstructions  in  Channel.  Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man. 
Ser.  I,  V,  189;  Hertslet,  Europe,  1027;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I 
IV,  630. 

1871;  Apr.  16:  Berlin.  Constitution.  German  Empire.  Art.  64: 
Navigation  of  Inland  Waterways.  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions, 
I,  343. 

NEISSE 

1815 ;  June  9 :  Vienna.  Final  Act  of  the  Congress.  Art.  15 :  Thal- 
weg Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  221. 

1871;  Apr.  16:  Berlin.  Constitution.  German  Empire.  Art.  54: 
Navigation  of  Inland  Waterways.  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions, 
I,  343. 

NETZE 

1807;  July  7:  Tilsit.  Treaty.  France  &  Prussia.  Art.  17:  Aboli- 
tion of  all  Tolls  upon  Vessels  in  transit  to  &  from  the  Vistula. 
Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  III,  pt.  1,  43. 

NIEMEN 

1825;  Feb.  27/Mar.  11:  Berlin.  Convention.  Prussia  &  Russia. 
Arts.  5,  6 :  Prohibiting  Imposition  of  Tolls  on  Navigation  of  Nie- 
men  &  its  Affluents.  Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  V,  pt.  2,  390;  GB. 
BFSP,  XII,  927;  Martens,  NRT,  VI,  688. 

NIERS  CANAL 

1895;  May  16:  The  Hague.  Treaty.  Germany/Netherlands.  Im- 
provement &  Maintenance  of  the  Canal.  Lagemans,  Netherlands, 
XII,  Doc.  no.  825 ;  Martens,  Ser.  II,  XXIII,  44. 

NIERS 

1895;  May  16:  The  Hague.  Treaty.  Germany/Netherlands.  Im- 
provement &  Maintenance  of  the  Navigable  Channel.  Lagemans, 
Netherlands,  XII,  Doc.  no.  825 ;  Martens,  Ser.  II,  XXIII,  44. 

ODER 

1648;  Oct.  24:  Osnabruck.     Treaty.     (Peace  of  Westphalia).     France, 


222  EUEOPE 

Oder 

Germany,  Sweden,     Art.  X,  sec.  1:     Boundary.     Dumont,  Corps 

Univ.  Dipl.,  VI,  469,  481. 
1818 ;  Dec.  7/19 :  St.  Petersburg.     Treaty.     Prussia/Russia.     Art.  II : 

Relating  to  the  Polish  Provinces;  Perfect,  Reciprocal  Freedom 

of   Navigation.     GB.   BFSP,   V,   945-46;    Martens,   NRT,   IV, 

582-84. 
1825;    Feb.    27/March    11:     Berlin.     Convention.     Prussia/Russia. 

Art.  IV :     Freedom  of  Navigation  on  basis  of  Absolute  Equality. 

Cussy-Hauterive,  RTC,  V,  pt.  2,  390;  GB.  BFSP,  XII,  927; 

Martens,  NRT,  VI,  688. 

CURE 

1815 ;  June  9 :  Vienna.  Final  Act  of  the  Congress.  Austria,  France, 
Great  Britain,  Portugal,  Prussia,  Russia,  Spain,  Sweden.  Arts. 
25,  68:     Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  229,  252. 

1816;  June  26:  Aix-la-Chapelle.  Treaty.  Netherlands  &  Prussia. 
Art.  27:  Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation.  Hertslet,  Eu- 
rope, 452. 

PASWIG  LAKES 

1826;  May  14:  St.  Petersburg.  Convention.  Russia  and  Sweden  & 
Norway.    Art.  II:    Boundary.    Hertslet,  Europe,  745. 

PASWIG 

1826;  May  14:  St.  Petersburg.  Convention.  Russia  and  Sweden  & 
Norway.  Art.  II:  Boundary.  Art.  IX:  Freedom  of  Naviga- 
tion; Plottage  of  Timber;  Regulation  of  Fisheries.  Hertslet, 
Europe,  745-46. 

PO 

1177;  June  8:  Ferrara.  Convention.  Bologna,  Ferrara,  Mantua, 
Milan,  Modena,  Ravenna,  Venice.  Establishing  Freedom  of 
Fluvial  Navigation.  NYS,  Rev.  Gene,  du  Droit  Int.,  Vol.  XI, 
192,  197 ;  citing  Pasolini,  "  Documenti  Riguardanti  antiche  Re- 
lazioni  fra  Venezia  e  Ravenna,"  Doc.  no.  3,  pg.  13. 

1757;  Nov.  30/Dec.  7:  Milan  &  Rome.  Treaty.  Austria  &  Rome. 
Arts.  II,  IV:  Navigation.  Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  I,  pt.  2, 
143-44. 

1814 ;  May  30 :  Paris.  Treaty.  Austria,  France,  Great  Britain,  Prus- 
sia, Russia.  Separate,  Secret  Art.  II:  Boundary.  Hertslet, 
Europe,  18. 

1815 ;  June  9 :  Vienna.  Final  Act  of  the  Congress.  Austria,  France, 
Great  Britain,  Portugal,  Prussia,  Russia,  Spain,  Sweden.  Art. 
96:    Application  of  the  General  Principles  governing  Freedom 


EUROPE  223 

Po 

of  Navigation  as  embodied  in  Annex  XVI.  Art.  95,  sec.  2: 
Thalweg  Boundary.  Cussy/Hauterive,  I,  pt.  1,  70;  Hertslet, 
COM.  TR.,  I,  3 ;  Hertslet,  Europe,  264 ;  Lagemans,  Netherlands, 
I,  Doc.  no.  30;  Neumann,  ETA,  II,  673.  (Commentary: 
MOORE,  Int.  Arb.,  4852;  MOORE,  ILD,  I,  629;  PHILLIMORE, 
Int.  Law  (1879),  I,  232.) 

1821 ;  Oct.  16 :  Convention.  Austria  &  Parma.  Governing  Imposi- 
tion of  Navigation  Dues.     Neumann,  ETA,  III,  650. 

1825 ;  Sep.  3 :  Milan.  Convention.  Austria/Parma.  Providing  for 
the  Joint  Imposition  of  Navigation  Dues.  Neumann,  RTA,  IV, 
116. 

1834;  Dec.  4:  Turin.  Treaty.  Austria/Sardinia.  Arts.  1-24:  Sup- 
pression of  Contraband  Trade  aboard  Vessels  navigating  the 
River.     Martens,  NRT,  XIII,  198-205. 

1849;  July  3:  Milan.  Treaty.  Austria,  Modena,  Parma.  Arts.  I- 
XXIV  &  Additional  Arts.  1  &  2:  Freedom  of  Navigation. 
Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  I,  VI,  293 ;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  38, 
130;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  IX,  930;  Hertslet,  Europe,  1095;  Mar- 
tens, NRG,  Ser.  I,  XIV,  525;  Neumann,  RTA,  V,  118.  (Com- 
mentary: MOORE,  Int.  Arb.,  4852;  SCHUYLER,  Am.  Diplo- 
macy, 351;  WESTLAKE,  Int.  Law,  I,  151.) 

1849;  July  3:  Milan.  Convention.  Austria^/Parma.  Demarcation 
of  Sovereign  Rights  over  Fluvial  Territory.  Cussy,/Martens, 
Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  I,  VI,  299 ;  Hertslet,  Europe,  1104,  Doc.  no.  213. 

1849;  Aug.  6:  Milan.  Convention.  Austria/Sardinia.  Art.  V: 
Boundary.     Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  I,  VI,  300. 

1849;  Aug.  8:  Milan.  Treaty.  Austria/Modena.  Art.  V:  Thal- 
weg Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  1112 ;  Neumann,  RTA,  V,  146. 

1850 ;  Feb.  12 :  Portici.  Accession  of  the  Pope  to  the  Treaty  of  Mi- 
lan, July  3,  1849,  establishing  Freedom  of  Navigation,  including 
all  tributaries  below  confluence  of  the  Ticino.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol. 
38,  136;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  IX,  935;  Hertslet,  Europe,  1123; 
Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I,  XIV,  532.  (Commentary:  MOORE, 
ILD,  I,  629.) 

1851 ;  Oct.  18 :  Vienna.  Treaty.  Austria/Sardinia.  Art.  12 :  Reci- 
procal Freedom  of  Navigation.  Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser. 
I,  VI,  626;  630;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  42,  1285,  1287,  1297. 

1851;  Nov.  22:  Turin.  Convention.  Austria/Sardinia.  Art.  I: 
Suppression  of  Contraband  Trade  aboard  Vessels  navigating  the 
River.  Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  I,  VI,  649.  (Commen- 
tary:   WESTLAKE,  Int.  Law,  I,  151.) 

1859 ;  Nov.  10 :  Zurich.     Treaty.    Austria,  France,  Sardinia.     Arts.  I, 


224  EUEOPE 

Po 

III:  Thalweg  Boundary.  Art.  XVIII-  Kecognition  of  the 
Liberty  of  Navigation,  including  Affluents,  in  conformity  with 
existing  treaties.  Annuaire  des  Deux  Mondes,  1858-59,  pg.  1000 ; 
Hertslet,  Europe,  1392-93,  1409.  (Commentary :  FIORE,  Droit 
Int.  Publ.,  Vol.  II,  pg.  80,  sec.  796;  NTS,  Droit  Int.,  I,  476-77.) 

1859;  Nov.  21:  Zurich.  Protocol  of  Conference.  Austria,  France, 
Sardinia.  Demarcation  of  International  Boundary  in  Thalweg. 
GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  50,  1019;  Hertslet,  Europe,  1414. 

1860;  June  16:  Peschiera.  Final  Act  of  Demarcation.  Endorsed  by 
the  Military  Commission  appointed  in  conformity  with  the 
Treaty  of  Zurich ;  Nov.  10,  1859.     Hertslet,  Europe,  1439,  1443. 

1860;  June  16:  Peschiera.  Treaty.  Austria,  France,  Sardinia. 
Formal  Adoption  of  Thalweg  Boundary  endorsed  by  the  Military 
Commission.     Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I,  XVII,  part  2,  pg,  5. 

(NOTE : 

(FIORE,  Droit  Int.  Publ.,  Vol.  II,  pg.  80,  considers  all  international 

rights  on  the  Po  extinguished  by  Treaty  of  Vienna,  Oct.  3,  1866 ; 

NYS,  Droit  Int.,  I,  477,  states  that  these  rights  still  endure.) 


PODHORCE;  SBRUCZ;  or  ZBRUCZ 

1829;  July  10/June  28:  Radziwilow.  Treaty.  Austria  &  Russia. 
Preamble;  Art.  Ill:  Thalweg  Boundary.  Hertslet,  Europe, 
810-11. 

POLISH  WATERWAYS 

I.  RIVERS:     AA,    (Tributaries),   Miischa,   Njemeneh;   BUG,   or 

BOUG,  (Trib.),  Kodyma;  DNIEPER,  (Tribs.),  Be- 
resina,  Pripet,  Tetereiv;  DNIESTER,  (Tribs.), 
Shrucz,  Sereth;  DUNA,  or  DWINA;  NIEMEN,  or 
MEMEL,  (Tribs.),  Duhissa,  Newjasha,  Schara, 
SchescJiupa,  Wilija;  PRITTH;  VISTULA,  (Tribs.), 
Bug,  Narew,  Piliza,  Wjeprsh;  WARTHE,  or 
WARTA,  (Tribs.),  Netze,  Prosna;  WINDAU. 

II.  CANALS  :    AUGUSTOWO,  connecting  Narew  &  Niemen  rivers ; 


BACHORZE, 

BERESINA, 

BROMBERG, 

BUG-PRIPET, 

OGINSKI, 

PARCHANIE, 

WINDAU, 


Netze  &  Vistula 
Beresina  &  Ulla 
Oder  &  Vistula 
Bug  &  Pripet 
Pripet  &  Schara 
Netze  &  Vistula 
Dubissa  &  Windau 


EUEOPE  225 

Polish  Waterways 

1815 ;  Apr.  21/May  3 :  Vienna.  Treaty.  Austria/Kussia.  Arts.  24r- 
29 :  "  The  Navigation  of  all  the  Kivers  and  Canals  throughout 
the  whole  extent  of  the  ancient  kingdom  of  Poland  (as  it  ex- 
isted before  the  year  1772)  to  their  mouths,  as  well  in  ascend- 
ing as  in  descending,  shall  be  free,  so  as  not  to  be  interdicted 
to  any  inhabitant  of  the  Polish  provinces,  subject  to  either  the 
Russian  or  Austrian  Government."  Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC, 
I,  pt.  2,  183;  Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  I,  III,  103-111; 
Hertslet,  Europe,  100.  (Commentary:  MOORE,  Int.  Arb., 
4852;  MOORE,  ILD,  Vol.  I,  629.) 

1815 ;  Apr.  21/May  3 :  Vienna.  Treaty.  Prussia /Russia.  Arts.  22- 
25:  Formed  Annex  II  of  the  Final  Act.  Freedom  of  Naviga- 
tion on  all  Rivers  and  Canals  of  the  former  Kingdom  of  Poland; 
subject  to  regulations  similar  to  those  adopted  by  Austria  & 
Russia  in  Treaty  of  even  date.  Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser. 
I,  III,  111-116;  Hertslet,  Europe,  111-12. 

1815 ;  June  9  :  Vienna.  Final  Act  of  the  Congress.  Austria,  France, 
Great  Britain,  Portugal,  Prussia,  Russia,  Spain,  Sweden.  Arts. 
14;  108-116;  118,  sec.  1,  sec.  2,  sec.  16;  Annex  1;  Annex  2;  Annex 
16:  Freedom  of  Navigation  on  all  Rivers  &  Canals  of  the  an- 
cient Kingdom  of  Poland.  Hertslet,  Europe,  221,  269,  272-73, 
276. 

1818;  Aug.  5/17:  St.  Petersburg.  Convention.  Austria  &  Russia. 
Art.  II:  Renewal  of  Stipulations  concerning  Freedom  of  Navi- 
gation embodied  in  Art.  24  of  Treaty  of  Vienna;  Apr.  21/May 
3,  1815.  Art.  Ill:  Application  of  these  Stipulations  to  all 
Canals,  existing  or  constructed  in  future.  Cussy/Hauterive, 
RTC,  V,  pt.  2,  445 ;  Martens,  NRT,  IV,  540. 

PORTA 

1844;  Nov.  28:  Florence.  Treaty.  Austria,  Lucca,  Modena,  Sar- 
dinia, Tuscany.  Arts.  2,  9:  Boundary.  Hertslet,  Europe, 
1049,  1055. 

PRO SNA 

1815 ;  June  9  :  Vienna.  Final  Act  of  the  Congress.  Art.  II :  Thal- 
weg Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  217. 

1836 ;  Dec.  1/13 :  Tarnowitz.  Convention.  Prussia  &  Russia.  De- 
marcation of  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  964. 

PRUTH 

1812;  May  28:  Bucharest.  Treaty.  Russia  &  Turkey.  Art.  IV: 
Thalweg  Boundary  from  Moldavian  Frontier  to  confluence  with 


226  EUROPE 

Pruth 

Danube.  Hertslet,  Europe,  2030;  Koch/Sclioell,  Hist.  Abr.  Tr., 
XIV,  539 ;  Martens,  NET,  III,  399. 

1818;  Aug.  5/17:  St.  Petersburg.  Convention.  Austria  &  Russia. 
Arts.  I,  II,  III :  Liberty  of  Navigation  reserved  for  exclusive  en- 
joyment of  the  Riverain  Powers.  Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  V,  pt. 
2,  444;  Martens,  NRT,  IV,  540. 

1829;  July  10:  Radziwilow.  Treaty.  Austria  &  Russia.  Preamble: 
Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  810. 

1829;  Sept.  14:  Adrianople.  Treaty.  Russia/Turkey.  Art.  Ill: 
Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  815. 

1856;  Mar.  30:  Paris.  Treaty.  Austria-Hungary,  France,  Great 
Britain,  Prussia,  Russia,  Sardinia,  Turkey.  Art.  XX:  Bound- 
ary. GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  46,  8;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  X,  533,  536; 
Hertslet,  Europe,  1250,  1259 ;  Sturdza,  Rec.  Doc,  32. 

1857;  Jan.  6:  Paris.  Protocol  of  Conference.  Austria-Hungary, 
France,  Great  Britain,  Prussia,  Russia,  Sardinia,  Turkey. 
Boundary  in  Thalweg.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  47,  92 ;  Hertslet,  COM. 
TR.,  X,  553 ;  Hertslet,  Europe,  1298-99. 

1857;  Apr.  11/Mar.  30:  Kichineff.  Agreement.  Austria-Hungary, 
France,  Great  Britain,  Russia,  Turkey.  Art.  I:  Thalweg 
Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  1314, 

1866 ;  Dec.  3/15 :  Bucharest.  Convention.  Austria,  Russia,  and  the 
United  Principalities  of  Moldavia  &  "Wallachia.  Arts.  1-32: 
Navigation  Regulations.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  58,  631;  Hertslet, 
Europe,  1789-1796;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I,  XX,  296;  Martens, 
Rec.  Russ.,  IV,  part  2,  858;  Neumann,  RTA,  IV  n.  s.,  606; 
Sturdza,  Rec.  Doc,  760.  (Commentary:  MOORE,  Int.  Arb., 
4852;  MOORE,  ILD,  I,  629.) 

1871 ;  Jan.  27-28/Feb.  8-9 :  Bucharest.  Regulatory  Convention.  In- 
stituted by  the  Permanent  Mixed  Commission  of  the  Pruth. 
(Representatives  of  Austria,  Russia,  &  Roumania.)  Governing 
Police  &  Navigation ;  followed  by  Provisional  Tariff  Table.  GB. 
BFSP,  Vol.  63,  989;  Hertslet,  Europe,  1909;  Martens,  NRG, 
Ser.  II,  I,  485 ;  Neumann,  RTA,  VII,  n.  s.,  186. 

1895 ;  Feb.  18/March  2 :  Bucharest.  Convention.  Austria-Hungary, 
Roumania,  Russia.  (Permanent  Mixed  Commission.)  Naviga- 
tion Regulations.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  87,  508;  Neumann,  RTA, 
XVII,  295. 

1896 ;  Apr.  1/13 :  Galatz.  Law.  Permanent  Mixed  Commission. 
Navigation  &  Police  Regulations.     Sturdza,  Rec.  Doc,  768. 

1896;  Apr.  22:  Galatz.  Law.  Permanent  Mixed  Commission  rep- 
resenting Austria-Hungary,  Roumania,   &  Russia.     Provisional 


EUEOPE  227 

Pruth 

Tariff   to   be    levied   on   Navigation.     Sturdza,   Eec.   Doc,   799. 

1896;  May  7:  Galatz.  Law.  Permanent  Mixed  Commission.  Sani- 
tary Regulations  applicable  to  the  Navigation  of  the  Pruth. 
Sturdza,  Eec.  Doc,  795. 

1901;  Feb.  9/21:  Bucharest.  Convention.  Eoumania  &  Eussia. 
Eegulating  Fisheries  in  Danube  &  Pruth.  Deschamps/Eenault, 
EIT  (XXe  Siecle);  Neumann,  ETA,  XX  n.  s.,  ^93;  Sturdza, 
Eec  Doc,  825. 

1907;  Oct.  16/29:  Bucharest.  Convention.  Eoumania  &  Eussia. 
Governing  Eiverain  Fisheries.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  101,  569;  Mar- 
tens, NEG,  Ser.  Ill,  I,  907. 

PUYCEEDA  CANAL 

1866;  May  26:  Bayonnc  Treaty.  France/Spain.  Art.  IV:  De- 
marcation of  Frontiers.     Olivart,  Colecc  Tratados,  IV,  246-262. 

1868;  July  11:  Bayonne.  Convention,  France/Spain.  Utilization 
&  Enjoyment  of  the  waters  of  the  Canal.  Arts.  IV,  V.  Hertslet, 
Europe,  1844;  Olivart,  Colecc.  Tratados,  IV,  311-320. 

QUEICH;  or  DE  LA  QUEICH 

1814 ;  May  30 :  Paris.  Treaty.  Austria,  France,  Great  Britain,  Prus- 
sia, Eussia.     Art.  Ill,  sec  5:  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  5. 

EAOUE 

1868;  July  11:  Bayonnc  Convention.  France  &  Spain.  Art.  I, 
part  2 :  Boundary ;  amplifying  Treaty  of  Bayonne ;  May  26,  1866. 
Hertslet,  Europe,  1844;  Olivart,  Colecc.  Tratados,  IV,  306-308. 

EHINE 

Principal  Tributaries:     Lahn;  Lippe;  Main;  Moselle;  Neckar;  Euhr. 

1648;  Oct.  24:  Munster.  Treaty.  Germany  &  France  (Peace  of 
Westphalia.)  Art.  85:  Assuring  Liberty  of  Navigation  for 
Eiverain  Inhabitants.  Cussy/Hauterive,  ETC,  I,  pt.  1,  32; 
Koch/Schoell,  Hist.  Abr.  Tr.,  I,  236. 

1667;  Feb.  17  (o.  s.)  :  Arbitral  Award.  Eepresentatives  of  France 
&  Sweden.  Composing  Dispute  between  the  Elector  of  Mainz 
&  the  Elector  Palatine  concerning  Ehine  Tolls.  ET.  PAIX, 
Vol.  IV,  187,  189. 

1697;  Oct.  30:  Eyswick.  Treaty.  France  &  Germany.  Art.  18: 
Stipulated  that  navigation  &  auxiliary  uses  of  the  river  should 
remain  free  to  the  subjects  of  the  Contracting  Parties,  as  well 
as  to  all  others  who  wished  to  navigate,  pass,  or  transport  mer- 
chandise.    Cussy/Hauterive,  ETC,  I,  pt.  1,  33;  Dumont,  Corps 


228  EUROPE 

Rhine 

TJniv.  DipL,  VII,  pt.  2,  421 ;  Koch/Schoell,  Hist.  Abr.  Tr.,  I,  441. 
(Commentary:  NYS,  Droit  Int.,  I,  476.) 

1714;  Mar.  6:  Eastadt.  Treaty.  France  &  Germany.  Art.  VI: 
Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation.  Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  I, 
pt.  1,  35. 

1714;  Sept.  7:  Baden.  Treaty.  France  &  Germany.  Art.  VI:  Re- 
newal of  Stipulations  embodied  in  Art.  18  of  Treaty  of  Ryswick, 
— Oct.  30,  1697, — guaranteeing  mutual  enjoyment  of  Naviga- 
tion &  Auxiliary  Uses.  Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  I,  pt.  1,  37;  Du- 
mont,  Corps  Univ.  DipL,  VII,  pt.  1,  436;  Koch/Schoell,  Hist. 
Abr.  Tr.,  II,  141. 

1751;  Apr.  28:  Munich.  Treaty.  The  Elector  of  the  Palatinate  & 
France.  Arts.  1-10:  Navigation  Regulations.  Cussy/Hauter- 
ive, RTC,  I,  pt.  1,  119. 

1751;  May  29:  Munich.  Treaty.  Accession  of  the  Elector  of  Mainz 
to  the  Treaty  of  Munich,  Apr.  28,  1751,  governing  navigation. 
Arts.  1-7.     Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  I,  pt.  1,  121. 

1795 ;  May  16 :  The  Hague.  Treaty.  France/Netherlands.  Art.  18 : 
Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation,  including  affluents. 
Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  II,  pt.  1,  373 ;  Koch/Schoell,  Hist.  Abr. 
Tr.,  IV,  293;  Martens,  RPT,  V,  532.  (Commentary:  ENGEL- 
HARDT,  Hist,  du  Droit  Fluv.  Conv.,  51.) 

1796;  Aug.  22:  Paris.  Treaty.  Baden/France.  Arts.  8,  9,  11,  12, 
13,  &  Separate  Secret  Art.  Ill :  Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Naviga- 
tion; Transit  Dues  abolished  where  Rhine  separates  the  respec- 
tive parties.  Clercq,  RTF,  I,  292;  Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  I, 
pt.  1,  123. 

1797;  Oct.  17:  Campo  Formio.  Treaty.  Austria  &  France.  Secret 
Art.  II :  Navigation  to  be  free  to  the  subjects  of  the  Contracting 
States  from  Hiiningen  to  the  Frontier  of  the  Batavian  Re- 
public. Koch/Schoell,  Hist.  Abr.  Tr.,  V,  55;  Martens,  RPT, 
VII,  209;  Martens,  RT,  VI,  426;  Univ.  of  Penn.,  Transl.  & 
Reprints,  II,  no.  2,  pg.  4. 

1801 ;  Feb.  9 :  Luneville.  Treaty.  France  &  Germany.  Freedom 
of  Navigation,  including  affluents,  ensured  to  co-riparians. 
Martens,  RT,  VII,  296-302;  Martens,  RPT,  VII,  538-544. 
(Commentary:   SCHUYLER,  Am.  Dipl.,  346-47.) 

1802;  May  23:  Paris.  Treaty.  France  &  Prussia.  Art.  3:  Sup- 
pression of  Rhine  Tolls.     Clercq,  RTF,  I,  584. 

1804;  Aug.  15,  (27  Thermidor,  an  XII.):  Paris.  Convention. 
France  &  Germany.  Arts.  2,  10,  12,  19,  20,  23,  30,  31,  39,  40, 
41,  90,  91,  93 :  Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation ;  Regulation 


EUROPE  229 

Rhine 

of  the  Customs  Duties  on  Khine  Commerce;  Establishment  of 
Governing  Board  with  Central  Bureau  at  Mainz.  Clereq,  RTF, 
II,  91;  Cussy/Hauterive,  ETC,  I,  pt.  1,  125;  Cussy/Martens, 
Rec.  Man.,  II,  314;  Martens,  RT,  VIII,  261.  (Commentary: 
CLAPP,  The  Navigable  Rhine,  11;  ENGELHARDT,  Du  Reg. 
Conv.  des  Fleuves  Int.,  174;  ENGELHARDT,  Hist,  du  Droit 
Fluv.  Conv.,  62.) 
1810;  Feb.  16:  Paris.  Treaty.  France  &  the  Grand  Duchy  of 
Frankfort.  Art.  VI:  Regulating  Imposition  of  Customs. 
Clereq,  RTF,  II,  311. 
1813;  Apr.  29:  Paris.  Treaty.  Baden,  Bavaria,  France,  Hesse, 
Nassau.  Arts.  1-5:  Administration  of  the  Works  for  Improv- 
ing the  Navigable  Channel.  Clereq,  RTF,  II,  379. 
1814;  May  30:  Paris.  Treaty.  Austria,  France.  Great  Britain, 
Portugal,  Prussia,  Russia,  Spain,  Sweden.  Art.  V:  Freedom  of 
Navigation  from  Headwaters  to  the  Sea.  Art.  3:  Boundary 
Thalweg.  Clereq,  RTF,  II,  418;  Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  I, 
pt.  1,  58;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  I,  249;  Hertslet,  Europe,  8;  Neu- 
mann, RTA,  II,  466;  Sturdza,  Rec.  Doc,  pg.  1.  (Commentary: 
ENGELHARDT,  Hist,  du  Droit  Fluv.  Conv.,  63-64;  KOCH/ 
SCHOELL,  Hist.  Abr.  Tr.,  X,  490;  MOORE,  ILD,  I,  628.) 
1815;  Mar.  20:  Vienna.     Treaty.     Formed  Annex  XVI  of  the  Final 

Act.  Arts.  1-32.  Clereq,  II,  463;  Hertslet,  Europe,  78. 
1815;  Mar.  24:  Vienna.  Agreement.  Embodied  in  Annex  XVI  of 
the  Final  Act.  Governing  Navigation.  Clereq,  RTF,  II,  463. 
1815;  June  8:  Vienna.  Federative  Constitution  of  Germany. 
Formed  Annex  IX  of  Final  Act.  Art.  XV :  Navigation.  Herts- 
let,  Europe,  204. 
1815 ;  June  9 :  Vienna.  Final  Act  of  the  Congress.  Arts.  Ill ;  117 ; 
118,  sec.  16;  &  Annex.  XVI:  Freedom  of  Navigation;  Forced 
Anchorage  &  Transhipment  of  Cargoes  Abolished;  Neutrality 
during  Hostilities.  Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  I,  pt.  1,  78;  Des- 
champs/Renault,  RIT,  XIXe  Siecle;  GB.  BFSP,  II,  162;  Herts- 
let,  COM.  TR.,  1,  3,  19;  Hertslet,  Europe,  272-73;  276';  Lage- 
mans,  Netherlands,  Vol.  I,  Doc.  no.  30;  Neumann,  RTA,  II, 
673;  Martens,  NRT,  II,  436;  Sturdza,  Rec.  Doc,  pg.  2. 
(Commentary:  BONFILS,  Droit  Int.,  sec  525,  pg.  330;  CLAPP, 
The  Navigable  Rhine,  13;  KOCH/SCHOELL,  Hist.  Abr.  Tr.' 
XI,  394;  MOORE,  Int.  Arb.,  4851;  WHEATON  (Lawrenco 
Edit.),  Elem.  of  Int.  Law,  Chap.  IV,  sec  17.) 
1815;  Nov.  20:  Paris.  Treaty.  Austria,  France,  Great  Britain, 
Prussia,  Russia.  Art.  I,  sec.  2:  Thalweg  Boundary.  Hertslet, 
Europe,  345. 


230  EUEOPE 

Rhine 

1819;  July  20:  Frankfort.  Treaty.  Austria,  Great  Britain,  Prus- 
sia, Russia.  Art.  V:  Established  Boundary  between  Bavaria 
&  France.     Hertslet,  Europe,  593. 

1820 ;  Aug.  25 :  Mainz.  Convention.  Baden  &  France.  Art.  II : 
Regulating  the  Establishment  of  Customs  Bureaux  between  Basle 
&  Strassbourg.  Art.  I:  Stipulating  Freedom  of  Navigation. 
Clercq,  RTF,  III,  240;  Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  I,  pt.  1,  141; 
Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man.  Ill,  483. 

1825 ;  July  5 :  Paris.  Convention.  Bavaria  &  France.  Art.  II : 
Boundai'y.     Hertslet,  Europe,  728. 

1826;  Sept.  10:  Chateau  of  Loo.  Law.  Netherlands  Government, 
Decree  of  the  King  concerning  Freedom  of  Navigation;  ex- 
cusing Navigators  from  the  Complete  Observance  of  the  Nether- 
lands Law  of  Aug.  22,  1822;  recognizing  the  River  Lek  as  con- 
tinuation of  the  Rhine.  Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man,  TV,  31 ; 
GB.  BFSP,  XIII,  1109;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Ill,  314,  317. 

1827;  March  1:  Brussels.  Law.  Government  of  the  Netherlands. 
Royal  Decree  governing  Navigation  of  River.  GB.  BFSP,  XV, 
1227;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  TV,  338-350. 

1828;  Jan.  18:  Munich.  Treaty.  Bavaria/Wurtemburg.  Art. 
XXIX.  Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  I,  pt.  2,  259;  Martens,  NRT, 
VII,  539. 

1831 ;  Mar..  31 :  Mainz.  Convention.  Baden,  Bavaria,  France, 
Hesse-Darmstadt,  Nassau,  Netherlands,  Prussia.  Chap.  I-X; 
Arts.  1-109;  including  appended  Protocol:  Freedom  &  Regula- 
tion of  Navigation.  Clercq,  RTF,  IV,  24;  Cussy/Hauterive, 
RTC,  I,  pt.  1,  155,  305;  Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  IV,  271; 
GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  18,  1076;  Vol.  19,  88;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR., 
X,  471;  Hertslet,  Europe,  848;  Lagemans,  Netherlands,  Vol.  II, 
Doc.  no.  127;  Martens,  NRT,  IX,  252.  (NOTE:  This  Con- 
vention incorporated  certain  stipulations  embodied  in  the  Con- 
vention of  Paris,  Aug.  15,  1804;  the  Treaty  of  Paris,  May  30, 
1814;  the  Congress  of  Vienna,  June  9,  1815;  &  the  Convention 
of  Mainz,  Aug.  25,  1820.  Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  I,  pt.  1,  125, 
58,  78,  141.)  (Commentary:  CLAPP,  The  Navigable  Rhine, 
13-14,  20;  ENGELHARDT,  Hist,  du  Droit  Fluv.  Conv.,  79,  96; 
KENT,  Commentaries,  125 ;  SCHUYLER,  Am.  Diplomacy,  348 ; 
TWISS,  Law  of  Nations  (Peace),  245-46;  WESTLAKE,  Int. 
Law,  I,  151.) 

1831;  June  28:  Law.  Government  of  the  Netherlands.  Royal  De- 
cree.    According  Sanction  to  the  Convention  of  Mainz,  March 


EUROPE  231 

Rhine 

31,  1831,  within  Dominions  of  the  Netherlands.  Lagemans, 
Netherlands,  II,  Doc.  no.  128. 

1831;  Sept.  20:  Mainz.  Convention.  Baden/France.  Supervision 
of  Navigation  in  conformity  with  Art.  101  of  the  Convention  of 
Mainz;  March  31,  1831.     Clercq,  KTF,  IV,  129. 

1831 ;  Nov.  15 :  London.  Treaty.  Austria-Hungary,  Belgium, 
France,  Great  Britain,  Prussia,  Russia.  Freedom  of  Naviga- 
tion; specific  application  of  stipulations  embodied  in  Arts.  108- 
117,  sanctioned  by  the  Congress  of  Vienna,  June  9,  1815. 
Cussy/Hauterive,  ETC,  I,  pt.  2,  283. 

1832;  Mar.  27:  Convention.  Baden  &  Bavaria.  Rectification  of  the 
Navigable  Channel.  Cnssy/Martens,  IV,  355;  Martens,  NRT, 
XI,  454. 

1834;  Dee.  1:  Mainz.  Convention.  Central  Commission  of  Rhine 
Navigation  (Baden,  Bavaria,  France,  Hesse-Darmstadt,  Nassau, 
Netherlands,  Prussia.)  Adoption  of  Four  Supplementary  Ar- 
ticles in  modification  of  the  first  Four  Articles  of  the  Conven- 
tion of  Mainz;  March  31,  1831.  Clercq,  RTF,  IV,  280;  GB. 
BFSP,  Vol.  23,  641;  Lagemans,  Netherlands,  II,  Doc.  no.  140, 
no.  142;  Martens,  NRT,  XII,  734;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I,  II, 
537. 

1835 ;  May  12 :  Berlin.  Treaty.  Baden,  Bavaria,  Hesse,  Prussia, 
Saxony,  Thuringian  League,  Wurtemburg.  Arts.  15,  16,  17: 
Reciprocal  Abolition  of  Navigation  Dues.  Martens,  NRT, 
XIII,  228,  240.  (NOTE:  Accession  of  Baden  to  Treaty  of 
Berlin  proclaimed;  Carlsruhe,  Nov.  26,  1835.  Martens,  NRT, 
XIII,  435-37.) 

1835;  Aug.  1:  Mainz.  Convention.  Baden,  Bavaria,  France,  Hesse- 
Darmstadt,  Nassau,  Netherlands,  Prussia.  Additional  Articles, 
no.  5,  no.  6;  supplementing  Convention  of  Mainz,  Mar.  31, 
1831.     Clercq,  RTF,  IV,  308. 

1835 ;  Dec.  3 :  Paris.  Law.  French  Government.  Ordinance  gov- 
erning Navigation.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  23,  641. 

1836 ;  March  2 :  Law.  Government  of  the  Netherlands.  Royal  De- 
cree ratifying  Supplementary  Articles,  I-IV,  adopted  by  Con- 
vention of  Mainz,  Dec.  1,  1834;  Modifying  Convention  of  March 
31,  1831.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  38,  617;  Lagemans,  Netherlands,  II, 
Doc.  no.  142. 

1837 ;  Aug.  1 :  Mainz.  Convention.  Baden,  Bavaria,  France,  Hesse- 
Darmstadt,  Nassau,  Netherlands,  Prussia.  Central  Rhine  Navi- 
gation Commission.     Additional  Articles,  nos.   V-IX;   revising 


232  EUROPE 

Rhine 

Convention  of  Mainz,  March  31,  1831.  Clercq,  RTF,  IV,  380; 
Lagemans,  Netherlands,  Doc.  no.  153a,  no.  168. 

1837;  Oct.  13:  Frankfort.  Convention.  Baden/Frankfort.  Re- 
ciprocal Freedom  from  Navigation  Tolls  upon  Rhine  &  Affluent 
Waters  within  Jurisdiction  of  the  Contracting  States.  Mar- 
tens, NRT,  XIV,  307-308. 

1837 ;  Oct.  31 :  Carlsruhe.  Convention.  Baden/France.  Supervis- 
ing the  Collection  of  Navigation  Tolls  at  the  Bureaux  of  Strass- 
burg  &  Vieux-Brisach.     Clercq,  RTF,  IV,  387. 

1838 ;  July  23,  24  &  25 :  Friburg.  Protocols  of  Conferences.  Baden 
&  France,  Concerning  Bridges  of  Hunningue  &  Vieux-Brisach. 
Clercq,  RTF,  IV,  419. 

1839 ;  May  29 :  Carlsruhe.  Agreement.  Baden/France.  Approving 
Protocol  of  Friburg,  July  23/25,  1838,  concerning  Construction 
of  Bridges.     Clercq,  RTF,  IV,  488. 

1839 ;  June  25 :  Law.  Government  of  the  Netherlands.  The  Hague. 
Royal  Decree  providing  for  Navigation  Regulations,  in  con- 
formity with  Addit.  Articles  embodied  in  Convention  of  Aug. 
1,  1837.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  38,  620;  Lagemans,  Netherlands,  Doc. 
no.  168. 

1839;  July  27:  Mainz.  Convention.  Baden,  Bavaria,  France, 
Hesse-Darmstadt,  Nassau,  Netherlands,  Prussia.  (Central 
Rhine  Navigation  Commission.)  Supplementary  Articles,  nos. 
10,  11,  12,  13 ;  amplifying  Convention  of  Mainz ;  March  31,  1831. 
Clercq,  RTF,  IV,  495;  Lagemans,  Netherlands,  Vol.  II,  Doc. 
no.  169b;  Doc.  no.  189. 

1840;  July  9:  Convention.  Baden,  Bavaria,  Hesse-Darmstadt,  Nas- 
sau.    Supervising  Navigation.     Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I,  I,  153. 

1840 ;  Sept.  21 :  Mainz.  Convention.  Baden,  Bavaria,  France, 
Hesse-Darmstadt,  Nassau,  Netherlands,  Prussia.  (Central 
Rhine  Navigation  Commission.)  Articles  XIV  &  XV:  Naviga- 
tion Regulations;  supplementing  Convention  of  Mainz,  March 
31,  1831.  Clercq,  RTF,  IV,  588;  Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man., 
V,  70;  Lagemans,  Netherlands,  Vol.  II,  Doc.  no.  185a;  Vol.  Ill, 
Doc.  no.  192;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I,  I,  386. 

1841 ;  Aug.  21 :  Law.  Government  of  the  Netherlands.  The  Hague. 
Royal  Decree  governing  Navigation;  embodying  provisions  of 
Additional  Arts.  X-XIII;  July  27,  1839.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  38, 
621;  Lagemans,  Netherlands,  Doc.  no.  189. 

1842;  Feb.  17:  Law  (Royal  Decree).  Government  of  the  Nether- 
lands. The  Hague.  Navigation  Regulations;  confirming  Ad- 
ditional Arts.   14—15   of  Convention  of  Mainz;   Sept.   21,   1840. 


EUROPE  233 

Rhine 

GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  38,  625;  Lagemans,  Netherlands,  Doc.  no.  192. 

1843;  Auff.  28:  Carlsruhe.  Protocol.  Baden/France.  Regulating 
Maintenance  of  Ferry  between  Au  &  Lauterburg.  Clercq,  RTF, 
V,  109. 

1844;  Jan.  5:  The  Hague.  Law  (Royal  Order).  Government  of 
the  Netherlands.  Navigation  Regulations  observing  Add.  Ar- 
ticle XV.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  38,  626;  Lagemans,  Netherl.,  Doc. 
no.  204. 

1844;  Apr.  20/26:  Convention.  Baden  &  France.  Regulating  Im- 
position of  Navigation  Tolls.  Clercq,  RTF,  V,  170 ;  Cussy/Mar- 
tens,  Rec.  Man.,  V,  388. 

1844;  Aug.  27/30:  Mainz.  Convention.  Baden,  Bavaria,  France, 
Hesse-Darmstadt,  Nassau,  Netherlands,  Prussia.  (Central 
Rhine  Navigation  Commission.)  Additional  Articles,  nos.  16 
&  17;  supplementary  to  the  Convention  of  Mainz,  March  31, 
1831.  Clercq,  RTF,  V,  196;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  34,  1294;  Lage- 
mans, Netherlands,  Vol.  Ill,  Docs.  no.  204a,  no.  215.  Martens, 
NRG,  Ser.  I,  VIII,  576. 

1844;  Sept.  17:  Mainz.  Convention.  Baden,  Bavaria,  France, 
Hesse-Darmstadt,  Nassau,  Netherlands,  Prussia.  (Central 
Rhine  Navigation  Commission.)  Ratification  of  Supplement- 
ary Article,  no.  18,  modifying  the  Convention  of  Mainz,  Mar. 
31,  1831.  Clercq,  RTF,  V,  224;  Lagemans,  Netherlands,  III, 
Doc.  no  204b,  no.  219. 

1845;  March  18,  19,  &  29:  Law.  Government  of  the  Netherlands. 
The  Hague.  Modifying  the  Existing  Regulations  governing 
Navigation,  in  conformity  with  Stipulations  of  Convention  of 
Mainz ;  March  31,  1831.  Lagemans,  Netherlands,  Vol.  Ill,  Docs, 
no.  207,  208,  &  no.  209. 

1845;  Nov.  1:  The  Hague.  Law  (Royal  Order).  Government  of 
the  Netherlands.  Navigation  Regulations;  embodying  Addi- 
tional Articles  Nos.  16  &  17  of  Aug.  27/30,  1844.  GB.  BFSP, 
Vol.  38,  631;  Lagemans,  Netherlands,  Doc.  no.  215. 

1845;  Nov.  26:  Law  (Royal  Order).  Government  of  the  Nether- 
lands. Governing  Navigation;  modifying  Law  of  Nov.  1,  1845, 
respecting  Addit.  Art.  16.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  38,  637;  Lagemans, 
Netherlands,  Doc.  no.  216. 

1846;  May  30:  Mainz.  Convention.  Baden,  Bavaria,  France, 
Hesse-Darmstadt,  Nassau,  Netherlands,  Prussia.  (Central 
Rhine  Navigation  Commission.)  Promulgation  of  Eighteenth 
Additional   Article;   supplementing   the   Convention   of   Mainz; 


234r  EUROPE 

Rhine 

March  31,  1831.  Cussy/Martens,  Eec.  Man.  V,  645;  Martens, 
NRG,  Ser.  I,  IX,  172. 

1846;  June  28:  The  Hague.  Law  (Koyal  Decree).  Government  of 
the  Netherlands.  Navigation  Ordinance;  observing  stipulations 
of  18th  Additional  Article.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  38,  637;  Lage- 
mans,  Netherlands,  Doc.  no.  219. 

1847;  Aug.  17:  Mainz.  Protocol  of  Conference.  Baden,  Bavaria, 
France,  Hesse-Darmstadt,  Nassau,  Netherlands,  Prussia.  (Ses- 
sion of  the  Central  Rhine  Commission.)  Cussy/Martens,  Rec. 
Man.,  VI,  161. 

1847;  Aug.  19/Sept.  3:  Mainz.  Convention.  Baden,  Bavaria, 
France,  Hesse-Darmstadt,  Nassau,  Netherlands,  Prussia.  Ad- 
ditional Article,  No.  19,  revising  the  Convention  of  Mainz; 
March  31,  1831.  Clercq,  RTF,  V,  556;  Cussy/Martens,  Rec. 
Man.  VI,  318;  Lagemans,  Netherlands,  III,  Docs.  No.  228b, 
No.  240. 

1849;  Oct.  11:  The  Hague.  Law  (Royal  Decree).  Government  of 
the  Netherlands.  Additional  Navigation  Regulations;  in  con- 
formity with  19th  Additional  Article  of  Aug.  19/Sept.  3,  1847. 
GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  38,  639;  Lagemans,  Netherlands,  Doc.  no.  240. 

1850;  Aug.  8:  The  Hague.  (Royal  Decree).  Government  of  the 
Netherlands.  Repealing  the  Transit  &  Navigation  Dues  as  Im- 
posed by  the  Convention  of  Mainz,  March  31,  1831;  and  Sanc- 
tioned by  the  Netherlands  Royal  Decree  of  June  28,  1831.  GB. 
BFSP,  Vol.  42,  1274;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR,  IX,  559;  Lagemans, 
Netherlands,  Vol.  Ill,  Doc.  no.  244. 

1852;  Sept.  8:  Mainz.  Convention.  Baden,  Bavaria,  France, 
Hesse-Darmstadt,  Nassau,  Netherlands,  Prussia.  (Central 
Rhine  Commission.)  Additional  Article,  No.  20,  modifying 
the  Convention  of  Mainz,  March  31,  1831.  Clercq,  RTF,  VI, 
114;  Lagemans,  Netherlands,  Vol.  Ill,  Doc.  no.  265a,  no.  300. 

1852;  Nov.  11:  The  Hague.  Law  (Royal  Decree).  Netherlands. 
Promulgation  of  20th  Additional  Article;  amplifying  Art.  59 
of  Convention  of  Mainz,  March  31,  1831.  Lagemans,  Nether- 
lands, Doc.  no.  300. 

1853;  May  2:  Berne.  Convention.  Bavaria/Switzerland.  Naviga- 
tion Regulations.     Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I,  XX,  112. 

1853;  July  29:  Convention.  Baden  &  Switzerland.  Providing  for 
a  Partial  Suppression  of  Customs  Duties  &  for  the  Diminution 
of  Navigation  Tolls  on  the  Upper  Rhine.  Cussy/Martens,  Rec. 
Man.,  Vn,  303. 

1854;  Oct.  20/31:  Stuttgart/Zurich.     Convention.     Baden  &  Switzer- 


EUROPE  235 

Rhine 

land.  Art.  I,  II:  Protection  &  Supervision  of  the  Riverain  Fish- 
eries.    Hertslet,  Europe,  1219. 

1856 ;  Nov.  26 :  Mainz,  Protocol  of  the  Conference.  Central  Com- 
mission of  Rhine  Navigation.  Clercq,  RTF,  VII,  189;  GB. 
BFSP,  Vol.  49,  1288. 

1856 ;  Nov.  29 :  Mainz.  Convention.  Baden,  Bavaria,  France, 
Hesse-Darmstadt,  Nassau,  Netherlands,  Prussia.  (Central  Com- 
mission of  Rhine  Navigation.)  Rectification  of  Navigable 
Channel  between  Bingen  &  Mainz.  Clercq,  RTF,  VII,  192; 
GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  49,  1297 ;  Lagemans,  Netherlands,  Vol.  IV,  Doc. 
no.  359. 

1857;  Feb.  25:  Carlsruhe.  Convention.  Baden/France.  Supervi- 
sion &  Rectification  of  Obstacles  and  Embankments.  Clercq, 
RTF,  VII,  214. 

1857;  July  2:  Carlsruhe.  Convention.  Baden/France.  Governing 
the  Construction  of  Bridges  over  the  Navigable  Channel. 
Clercq,  RTF,  VII,  291. 

1857;  Nov.  16:  Carlsruhe.  Convention,  Baden/France.  Restric- 
tions imposed  on  Construction  of  Bridge  at  Strassburg;  speci- 
fications regarding  precise  elevation  above  river's  highest  level. 
Clercq,  RTF,  VII,  342. 

1858;  May  7:  Mainz.  Convention.  Baden,  Bavaria,  France, 
Hesse-Darmstadt,  Nassau,  Netherlands,  Prussia.  Specifications 
imposed  for  Construction  of  Fixed  Bridge  at  Cologne.  Clercq, 
RTF,  VII,  395. 

1860 ;  Apr.  3 :  Mainz.  Convention.  Baden,  Bavaria,  France,  Hesse- 
Darmstadt,  Nassau,  Netherlands,  Prussia.  Regulating  Con- 
struction of  Permanent  Bridge  at  Mainz.  Clercq,  RTF,  VIII, 
38. 

1860;  Apr.  3:  Mainz.  Convention.  Baden,  Bavaria,  France,  Hesse- 
Darmstadt,  Nassau,  Netherlands,  Prussia.  Additional  Article, 
no.  21,  amplifying  the  Convention  of  Mainz;  Mar.  31,  1831. 
Rectification  of  the  Navigable  Channel  between  Bingen  &  Mainz. 
Clercq,  RTF,  VIII,  37;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  50,  1084. 

1860;  Sept.  30:  Carlsruhe.  Convention.  Baden/France.  Restrict- 
ing the  Establishment  of  Ferries  to  16  Specified  Positions;  7 
being  exclusively  controlled  by  the  French,  9  under  sole  con- 
trol of  Baden.  Clercq,  RTF,  VIII,  126;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser. 
I,  XVII,  part  1,  275. 

1864;  May  23:  The  Hague.  Law  (Royal  Decree).  Netherlands. 
Regulating  Police  Supervision  of  Fluvial  Navigation.  Lage- 
mans, Netherlands,  Doc.  no.  458. 


236  EUEOPH 

Rhine 

1864;  July  10:  The  Hague.  Law.  Government  of  the  Netherlands. 
Police  Regulations  governing  Fluvial  Navigation.  Lagemans, 
Netherlands,  V,  Doc.  no.  459. 

1866;  Aug.  17:  Berlin.  Treaty.  Baden  &  Prussia.  Art.  IX: 
Navigation  Dues  Abolished  to  the  extent  that  co-riverain  states 
undertake  similar  action,  simultaneously.  Hertslet,  Europe, 
1707,  1709. 

1866 ;  Aug.  22 :  Berlin.  Treaty.  Bavaria  &  Prussia.  Art.  X :  Tran- 
sit Dues  Abolished  provided  Co-riverain  States  undertake  similar 
action.     Hertslet,  Europe,  1714. 

1866;  Sept.  3:  Berlin.  Treaty.  Hesse-Darmstadt  &  Prussia.  Art. 
12:  Navigation  Tolls  Abolished  from  the  date  that  other  Ger- 
manic Eiverain  States  Adopt  Similar  Measures.  Hertslet, 
Europe,  1732, 

1867;  Sept.  22:  Bregenz.  Convention.  Austria,  Baden,  Bavaria, 
Switzerland,  Wurtemburg.  Governing  navigation  of  Lake  Con- 
stance &  the  upper  course  of  the  Rhine.  Martens,  NRG,  Ser. 
I,  XX,  117;  Neumann,  RTA,  V,  n.  s.,  255. 

1867;  Sept.  28:  St.  Gall.  Convention.  Baden  &  Switzerland. 
Governing  Navigation  of  the  Rhine  between  Constance  & 
Schaffliausen.  Cussy/ Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  II,  I,  441;  Mar- 
tens, NUG,  Ser.  I,  XX,  139. 

1868;  Oct.  17:  Mannheim.  Convention.  Baden,  Bavaria,  France, 
Hesse-Darmstadt,  Netherlands,  Prussia  (including  Hesse-Nas- 
sau.) Navigation  Regulations;  revising  the  Convention  of 
Mainz,  March  31,  1831,  and  the  Twenty  Additional  Articles  sub- 
sequently adopted.  Clercq,  RTF,  X,  177;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  59, 
870;  Hertslet,  Europe,  1847,  1849;  Lagemans,  Netherlands,  Vol. 
VI,  Docs.  nos.  510,  511,  512,  513;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I,  XX, 
355;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  IV,  599,  613,  617;  Sturdza,  Rec. 
Doc,  575.  (Commentary:  BLUNTSCHLI,  Droit  Int.,  sec.  314, 
pg.  197;  BONFILS,  Droit  Int.,  sec.  526,  pg.  331;  CLAPP,  The 
Navigable  Rhine,  16;  ENGELHARDT,  Hist,  du  Droit  Fluv. 
Conv.,  97;  WESTLAKE,  Int.  Law,  I,  153.) 

1869;  Nov.  27:  Mannheim.  Convention.  Baden,  Bavaria,  France, 
Hesse-Darmstadt,  Netherlands,  Prussia  (including  Nassau.) 
Establishing  Uniform  Regulations  for  the  Protection  of  Fish- 
eries in  the  Rhine  &  Tributary  Waters.  Lagemans,  Netherlands, 
VI,  Doc.  no.  526. 

1869 ;  Dec.  9 :  Berne.  Convention.  Baden  &  Switzerland.  Regu- 
lating Fisheries  between  Basle  &  Constance.  Martens,  NRG, 
Ser.  I,  XX,  166, 


EUROPE  237 

Rhine 

1871;  Apr.  16:  Berlin.  Constitution.  German  Empire.  Art.  54: 
Navigation  of  Inland  Waterways.  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions, 
I,  343. 

1871;  Sept.  19:  Vienna.  Convention.  Austria  &  Switzerland. 
Kectification  of  the  Navigable  Channel.  Martens,  NRG,  Ser. 
I,  XX,  171. 

1875 ;  Mar.  25 :  Basle.  Convention.  Baden  &  Switzerland.  Protec- 
tion &  Regulation  of  Fisheries  in  the  Rhine,  its  Tributary- 
Waters,  &  Lake  Constance;  followed  by  the  Declarations  of 
Nov.  30,  1875  &  Dec.  5,  1875.     Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  II,  60. 

1877;  July  14:  Mulhausen.  Convention.  Alsace-Lorraine,  Baden, 
Switzerland.  Accession  of  Alsace-Lorraine  to  the  Convention 
of  Basle;  March  25,  1875.     Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  II,  64. 

1877;  Sept.  4:  Mannheim.  Convention.  Germany  &  the  Nether- 
lands. Police  Regulations;  supplementary  to  the  Convention 
of  Mannheim,  Oct.  17,  1868.  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  IV,  618, 
622. 

1879;  May  10:  Basle.  Convention.  Baden  &  Switzerland.  Navi- 
gation Regulations  effective  between  Basle  &  Newhausen.  Mar- 
tens, NRG,  Ser.  II,  IX,  593. 

1885 ;  June  30 :  Berlin,  Convention.  Riverain  States :  Baden, 
Bavaria,  Hesse-Darmstadt,  Netherlands,  Oldenburg,  Prussia, 
Switzerland,  Wurtemburg.  Regulating  &  Protecting  the  River- 
ain Fisheries.     Lagemans,  Netherlands,  Vol.  IX,  Doc.  no.  698. 

1887 ;  May  18 :  Lucerne.  Convention.  Alsace-Lorraine,  Baden, 
Switzerland.  Guaranteeing  Mutual  Enjoyment  of  Riverain 
Fisheries.     Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  XIV,  350. 

1887;  Sept.  3:  Mainz.  Convention.  Central  Commission  of  Rhine 
Navigation.  Providing  Additional  Police  Supervision  of  River- 
ain Navigation.     Lagemans,  Netherlands,  X,  Doc.  no.  718. 

1892;  Dec.  30:  Treaty.  Austria  &  Switzerland.  Rectification  of 
Navigable  Channel.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  84,  690. 

1894;  May  31:  Mannheim.  Convention.  Riverain  States:  Baden, 
Bavaria,  Hesse-Darmstadt,  Netherlands,  Oldenburg,  Prussia, 
Switzerland,  Wurtemburg.  Police  &  Navigation  Regulations. 
Lagemans,  Netherlands,  Supplement,  XIII,  Doc.  no.  812. 

1895;  Sept.  18:  Mannheim.  Convention.  Alsace-Lorraine,  Baden, 
Bavaria,  Hesse-Darmstadt,  Netherlands,  Prussia.  Additional 
Article  defining  intention  of  Articles  32-40  embodied  in  Con- 
vention of  Mannheim ;  Oct.  17,  1868.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  87,  788 ; 
Lagemans,  Netherlands,  Vol.  XIII,  Doc.  no.  834;  Martens,  NRG, 
Ser.  Ill,  II,  796. 


238  EUEOPE 

Rhine 

1897;  May  29;  Mainz.  Convention.  Central  Commission  of  Ehine 
Navigation.  Navigation  Regulations.  Lagemans,  Netherlands, 
Vol.  XIII,  Doe.  no.  860. 

1898;  June  4:  Mannheim.  Convention.  Eiverain  States:  Baden, 
Bavaria,  Hesse-Darmstadt,  Netherlands,  Oldenburg,  Prussia, 
Switzerland,  Wurtemburg.  Navigation  Regulations.  Lage- 
mans, Netherlands,  Vol.  XIV,  Doc.  no.  882. 

1902;  Sept.  4:  Mannheim.  Convention.  Riverain  States:  Restric- 
tions imposed  upon  Transportation  of  Inflammable  Materials. 
Lagemans,  Netherlands,  XV,  Doc.  no.  930. 

1905;  May  24:  Mannheim.  Convention.  Riverain  States:  Restric- 
tions governing  Transportation  of  Explosives.  Lagemans, 
Netherlands,  XVI,  Doc.  no.  960. 

1906 ;  Sept.  14 :  Mannheim.  Convention.  Riverain  States :  Police 
Supervision  &  Equipment  of  Vessels.  Lagemans,  Netherlands, 
XVI,  Docs.  nos.  981,  982,  983. 

1908;  Nov.  17:  Convention.  Baden  &  Switzerland.  Protection  of 
Fisheries;  revising  Stipulations  of  Treaty  of  July  3,  1897.  Mar- 
tens, NRG,  Ser.  Ill,  IV,  875. 


RHINE-RHONE  CANAL 

1871;  May  10:  Frankfort.  Treaty.  France  &  Germany,  Arts.  I, 
V;  Regulating  Navigation  &  Providing  for  Maintenance.  Hert- 
slet,  Europe,  1955-57;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I,  XIX,  688. 

1871;  Dec.  11:  Frankfort.  Convention.  France/Germany.  Sup- 
plementing Provisions  embodied  in  Treaty  of  Frankfort;  May 
10,  1871.  Art.  XIV:  Appointment  of  Commissioners  entrusted 
with  Regulating  Navigation.     Hertslet,  Europe,   1968,  1970. 

RHINE-SCHELDT  CONNECTING  WATERWAYS 

1831;  Nov.  15:  London.  Treaty.  Austria-Hungary,  Belgium, 
France,  Great  Britain,  Prussia,  Russia.  Art.  IX:  Reciprocal 
Freedom  of  Navigation  of  Waterways  forming  or  traversing  the 
International  Frontier.  Art.  X:  Exclusive  Use  of  Canals. 
Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  I,  pt.  2,  283;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  IV, 
31;  Hertslet,  Europe,  864. 

1839;  April  10:  London.     Convention.     Belgium/Netherlands. 

Apr.  19 :  London.     Treaty.     Austria-Hungary,  Belgium,  France, 
Great  Britain,  Netherlands,  Prussia,  Russia.    Art.  IX :  Reciprocal 


EUROPE  239 

Rhine-Scheldt  Waterways 

Freedom  of  N^avigation.  Clercq,  KTF,  IV,  470-477 ;  Cussy/Mar- 
tens,  Rec.  Man.,  IV,  575;  Hertslet,  COM.  TK,  V,  354,  359; 
Hertslet,  Europe,  987-998;  Neumann,  RTA,  IV,  416,  421; 
Sturdza,  Eee.  Doc.  854,  855. 

1842;  Nov.  5:  The  Hague.  Treaty.  Belgium/Netherlands.  Arts. 
38-49:  Navigation  Regulations.  Hertslet,  Europe,  1029;  Mar- 
tens, NRG,  Ser.  I,  III,  622;  Sturdza,  Rec.  Doc.  862. 

1843;  May  20:  Antwerp.  Convention.  Belgium/Netherlands. 
Composing  Fluvial  Disputes;  Protection  of  Fisheries  in  Com- 
munal "Waters;  Navigation  Regulations.  Cussy/Martens,  Rec. 
Man.  V,  306;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I,  V,  294,  307,  339,  381; 
Moniteur  Beige,  1842/1843. 

1843;  Aug.  8:  Maastricht.  Convention.  Belgium  &  the  Nether- 
lands. Arts.  12-13:  Protection  &  Mutual  Enjoyment  of  the 
Fisheries.  Arts.  35-36:  Navigation  Regulations.  GB.  BFSP., 
Vol.  35,  1202,  1220-21;  Hertslet,  Europe,  1031. 

1851 ;  Oct.  3  :  The  Hague.  Agreement.  Belgimn  &  the  Netherlands. 
Regulations  governing  the  Periodic  Closure  of  Rivers  &  Canals 
rendering  access  between  the  Contracting  Powers.  Lagemans, 
Netherlands,  Vol.  Ill,  Doc.  no.  269. 

RHINE-WESER  CANAL 

1871;  Apr.  16:  Berlin.  Constitution.  German  Empire.  Art.  54: 
Navigation  of  Inland  Waterways.  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions, 
I,  343. 

1906;  Mar.  29:  Berlin.  Treaty.  Bremen  &  Prussia.  Maintenance 
&  Navigation  Regulations.     Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  Ill,  I,  336. 

1906;  Oct.  19/30:  Berlin.  Treaty.  Prussia  &  Schaumburg-Lippe. 
Administration  of  the  Canal.     Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  Ill,  I,  339. 

1911;  Mar.  1/13:  Berlin.  Agreement.  Prussia  &  Schaumburg- 
Lippe.  Supplementing  the  Stipulations  of  the  Treaty  of  Ber- 
lin; Oct.  19/30,  1906.     Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  Ill,  VII,  889. 

RHONE 

1760;  Mar.  24:  Turin.     Treaty.     France/Sardinia.     Arts.  12,  13,  14: 

Reciprocal    Freedom    of    Navigation.     Cussy/Hauterive,    RTC, 

III,  281.     (Commentary:  NYS,  Droit  Int.,  I,  476.) 
1815;  Mar.   29:  Vienna.     Treaty.     Included  in  Annex  XII  of  the 

Final  Act.     Art.  I:  Thalweg  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  70. 
1815;   May  20:   Vienna.     Treaty.     Austria,   France,   Great  Britain, 

Prussia,    Russia,    Sardinia.     Annex    B.    B.;    Art.    I:    Thalweg 

Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  164. 
1815;   June   9:   Vienna.     Treaty.     Austria,   France,   Great   Britain, 


240  EUROPE 

Rhone 

Portugal,  Prussia,  Eussia,  Spain,  Sweden.  Art.  80;  Art.  118, 
sec.  12;  Annex  12:  Boundary.  Hertslet,  Europe,  80,  257,  273, 
275. 

1815;  Nov.  3:  Paris.  Agreement.  Austria,  Great  Britain,  Prussia, 
Russia.     Art.  IV:  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  328. 

1815;  Nov.  20:  Paris.  Treaty.  Austria,  France,  Great  Britain, 
Prussia,  Russia.     Art.  Ill:  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  347. 

1816;  Mar.  16:  Turin.  Treaty.  Geneva,  Sardinia,  Switzerland. 
Art.  I:  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  423-24. 

1819;  July  20:  Frankfort.  Treaty.  Austria,  Great  Britain,  Prus- 
sia, Russia.  Art.  41:  Thalweg  Boundary.  Hertslet,  Europe, 
610-11. 

1880;  Dec,  28:  Paris.  Convention.  France/Switzerland.  Chapter 
II;  Art.  XI:  Supervision  of  Fisheries  in  Affluents  of  Lake 
Geneva  (Leman) ;  notably  the  Rhone.  Clercq,  RTF,  XII,  619 ; 
Hertslet,  Europe,  3252;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  IX,  111. 

1884;  Dec.  9:  Paris.  Convention.  France/Switzerland.  Protection 
of  Fisheries  in  the  Affluents  of  Lake  Leman  (Geneva) ;  revising 
Convention  of  Paris,  Dec.  28,  1880.     Clercq,  RTF,  XIV,  428. 

1888;  Apr.  14:  Berne.  Agreement.  France/Switzerland.  Super- 
vision of  Fisheries  in  Frontier  Waters;  abrogating  Arrange- 
ment of  Dec.  9,  1884;  modifying  Convention  of  Paris,  Dec. 
28,  1880.  France.  Journal  Officiel,  Sept.  1,  1888;  Hertslet, 
Europe,  3280;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  XIV,  410. 

1891;  Mar.  12:  Berne.  Convention,  France/Switzerland.  Regula- 
tion of  Fisheries  in  Boundary  Waters;  revising  certain  stipula- 
tions of  Convention  of  Paris,  Dec.  28,  1880.  Clercq,  RTF,  XIX, 
62;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  XVIII,  238. 

1891;  July  30:  Berne.  Agreement.  France/Switzerland.  Govern- 
ing Fisheries  in  Frontier  Waters.  Clercq,  RTF,  XIX,  250; 
Martens;  NRG,  Ser.  II,  XVIII,  848;  XXI,  24. 

1904 ;  March  9 :  Paris.  Convention.  France/Switzerland.  Regti- 
lating  Fisheries.     Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  Vol.  33,  501, 

1909;  Jan.  20:  Lausanne.  Agreement.  France/Switzerland,  Fish- 
eries Regulations;  revising  Convention  of  Paris,  March  9,  1904. 
Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  Ill,  V,  318,  319. 


SAAL;  or  SAALE 

1815;   June  9:   Vienna.     Treaty.     Austria,   France,   Great   Britain, 


EUROPE  241 

Saal 

Portugal,  Prussia,  Russia,  Spain,  Sweden.  Art.  XV :  Boundary. 
Hertslet,  Europe,  223. 

1816;  Apr.  14:  Munich.  Treaty.  Austria  &  Bavaria.  Art.  IX: 
Renewal  of  Former  Stipulations  governing  Mutual  Utilization; 
Adoption  of  the  Principles  embodied  in  the  Final  Act  of  the 
Congress  of  Vienna  concerning  Freedom  of  Navigation. 
C^ssy/Hauterive,  RTC,  I,  pt.  2,  51 ;  Hertslet,  Europe,  439 ;  Mar- 
tens, NRT,  III,  15;  Martens,  RT.  SUPPL.,  VIL  (Comment- 
ary: MOORE,  Int.  Arb.,  4853.) 

1831;  May  17:  Treaty.  Anhalt-Bernburg  &  Prussia.  Concerning 
Imposition  of  Navigation  Tolls.  Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man.  IV, 
321;  Martens,  NRT,  IX,  361. 

SALZA;  or  SALZACH 

1779;  May  13:  Teschen.  Convention.  Austria  &  Bavaria  (The 
Elector  Palatine).  Art.  V:  Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation. 
Hertslet,  Europe,  Vol.  Ill,  2012;  Martens,  RPT,  II,  671;  Neu- 
mann, RTA,  I,  243-44.  (Commentary:  ENGELHARDT,  Du 
Reg.  Con  v.,  257.) 

1784;   Aug.   31:   Munich.     Treaty.     Austria   &   Bavaria.    Art.    IV: 
;         Reciprocal    Freedom    of    Navigation    in    conformity   with    Art 
V.  of  the  Convention  of  Teschen;  May  13,  1779.     Art.  X:  Ex- 
clusive Enjoyment  of  Fisheries  on  Respective  Sides  of  Thalweg. 
Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  I,  pt.  2,  48. 

1816;  Apr.  14:  Munich.  Treaty.  Austria  &  Bavaria.  Art.  IX: 
Renewal  of  Former  Stipulations  ensuring  Mutual  Enjoyment; 
Adoption  of  the  Principles  concerning  Freedom  of  Navigation 
embodied  in  the  Final  Act  of  the  Congress  of  Vienna. 
Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  pt.  2,  51;  Hertslet,  Europe,  439;  Mar- 
tens, NRT,  III,  15;  Martens,  RT.  SUPPL.,  VII. 

1851;  Dec.  2:  Vienna.  Treaty.  Austria  &  Bavaria.  Art.  1-17: 
Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation.     Neumann,  RTA,  448-54. 

1873;  Feb.  9:  Convention.  Austria  &  Bavaria.  Demarcation  of 
Fluvial  Boundary.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  65,  1293. 

SAMBRE 

1675;  Oct.  25:  Chateau  Freyr-sur-Meuse.  Treaty.  France  &  the 
Spanish  Netherlands.  (Holland  acceded  on  Dec.  17,  1675.) 
Art.  I:  Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Fluvial  Transportation  for  the 
Subjects  of  France,  Holland,  &  the  Spanish  Netherlands;  ex- 
cept for  Prohibited  Articles  of  Contraband,  as  Firearms  & 
similar  Munitions  of  War.     Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  I,  pt.  1,  226. 


242  EUROPE 

Sambre 

1820;  Mar.  28:  Courtrai.  Treaty.  France/JSTetherlands.  Art.  I: 
Eluvial  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  625. 

SAN 

1864;  Aug.  20:  Cracow.  Treaty.  Austria-Hungary  &  Eussia. 
Kectification  of  the  Navigable  Channel  where  forming  Inter- 
national Boundary.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  65,  333,  339;  Hertslet, 
Europe,  3216 ;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I,  XX,  288 ;  Neumann,  ETA, 
in,  n.  s.,  485. 

1871 ;  May  27 :  Agreement.  Austria-Hungary  &  Eussia.  Eegulation 
of  Navigable  Course.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  65,  339. 

SAEATSIKA 

1857;  Jan.  6:  Paris.  Protocol.  Austria-Hungary,  France,  Great 
Britain,  Prussia,  Eussia,  Sardinia,  Turkey.  Bessarabian 
Boundary;  Thalweg.     Hertslet,  Europe,  1299. 

SAEEE 

1773;  Oct.  29:  Convention.     France  &  Elector  of  Treves.     Mutual 

Liberty  of  Navigation.     (Commentary:  NYS,  Droit  Int.,  I,  476.) 
1815 ;    June   9 :    Vienna.     Treaty.     Austria,   France,    Great   Britain, 

Portugal,    Prussia,    Eussia,    Spain,    Sweden.     Art.    25 :    Fluvial 

Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  229. 
1815;    Nov.    20:    Paris.     Treaty.     Austria,    France,    Great    Britain, 

Prussia,  Eussia.     (Spain  adhered  to  this  Convention;  June  8, 

1817.)     Art.  I:  Fluvial  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  344. 
1819 ;  July  20 :  Frankfort.     Treaty.     Austria,  Great  Britain,  Prussia, 

Eussia.     Art.  13 :  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  597. 
1827;    June   11:    Paris.     Agreement.     France   &   Prussia.     Art.    V: 

Fluvial  Boundary.     Hertslet,   Europe,   768. 
1829;    Oct.   23;    Sarrebruck.     Convention.     France   &   Prussia.     Art. 

12:  Mutual  Enjoyment  of  Fisheries.     Hertslet,  Europe,  837. 

SAEEE  CANAL 

1861;  Apr.  4:  Paris.  Convention.  France  &  Prussia.  Arts.  I-V: 
Providing  for  the  Construction,  Maintenance,  &  Eeciprocal  En- 
joyment of  Navigation  of  the  Canal.  Cussy/Martens,  Eec. 
Man.,  Ser.  II,  I,  160. 

1871;  May  10:  Frankfort.  Treaty.  France  &  Germany.  Art.  V: 
Eegulating  Navigation  &  Providing  for  Maintenance.  Herts- 
let,  Europe,  1955,  1957;  Martens,  NEG,  Ser.  I,  XIX,  688. 

1871;  Dec.  11:  Frankfort.  Convention.  France/Germany.  Sup- 
plementing Stipulations  embodied  in  Treaty  of  Frankfort;  May 
10,   1871.     Art.    14:    Appointment   of   Commissioners    entrusted 


EUROPE  243 

Sarre  Canal 

with  Regulating  &  Maintaining  Navigation.     Hertslet,  Europe, 
1968,  1970. 

SAVE 

1739;    Sept.    18:    Belgrade.     Treaty.     Austria    &    Turkey.     Art.    7: 

Supervision    of   Fluvial    Fisheries.     Cussy/Hauterive,    RTC,    I, 

pt.  2,  114. 
1882;    Feb.    10/22:    Belgrade.     Convention.     Austria/Servia.     Arts. 

I-XXVII:    Eegulating    Eeciprocal    Enjoyment    of    Navigation. 

GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  73,  519;  Neumann,  RTA,  XI,  144. 

SCHELDT;  or  ESCAUT 

1212;  Feb.  24:  Breda.  Treaty.  Brabant  &  Breda.  Imposition  of 
Tolls  upon  Vessels  en  route  to  Scaldam  at  Stryne  in  Zealand. 
ET.  PAIX,  Vol.  I,  51. 

1648;  Jan.  30:  Miinster.  Treaty.  (Peace  of  Westphalia.)  Spain 
&  the  United  Provinces.  Eecognized  the  Independent  Dominion 
of  the  United  Provinces  on  both  Banks  of  the  lower  Scheldt. 
Art.  14:  Confirmed  the  Eight  of  the  Provinces  to  prohibit  the 
Navigation  by  Foreign  Vessels  on  the  Scheldt  &  all  Affluents, 
including  the  Sas  &  Zwin  Canals.  Clissy/Hauterive,  ETC,  Vol. 
Ill,  3;  Dumont,  Corps  Univ.  DipL,  VI,  pt.  1,  pg.  429;  Koch/ 
Schoell,  Hist.  Abr.  Tr.,  Vol.  I,  168;  Vol.  IV,  60;  Martens,  EPT, 
VI,  146.  (Commentary:  HALLECK,  Int.  Law,  I,  187;  OP- 
PENHEIM,  Int.  Law,  I,  227;  EIVIEE,  Prin.  du  Droit  des 
Gens,  I,  222;  TWISS,  Law  of  Nations  (Peace),  233; 
WHEATON,  Elem.  Int.  Law,  (Lawr.  Edit.),  Chap.  IV,  sec.  15.) 

1785;  Sept.  20:  Paris.  Treaty.  Austria/Netherlands.  Art.  6,  Art. 
15 :  Eenewed  Stipulations  of  Art.  14  of  the  Treaty  of  Miinster, 
Jan.  30,  1648,  recognizing  the  Exclusive  Sovereignty  of  the 
United  Provinces  over  the  Scheldt  from  Saftigen  to  the  Sea. 
Martens,  EPT,  II,  598-601.  (Commentary:  ENGELHAEDT, 
Hist,  du  Droit  Fluv.  Convent.,  47;  WESTLAKE,  Int.  Law,  I, 
148.) 

1785 ;  Nov.  8 :  Fontainebleau.  Treaty.  Austria/Netherlands.  Art. 
II:  Eenewal  of  Stipulations  embodied  in  Treaty  of  Miinster; 
Jan.  30,  1648.  Art.  7:  Eecognition  by  Joseph  II  of  Validity 
of  Dutch  Claim  to  Exclusive  Enjoyment.  Koch/Schoell,  Hist. 
Abr.  Tr.,  IV,    80;  Martens,  EPT,  II,  602-608. 

1792;  Nov.  20:  Antwerp.  Law.  Decree  of  the  Provisional  Execu- 
tive Council.  Abrogating  the  Eestrictions  imposed  by  the  Bar- 
rier Convention;  Treaty  of  Miinster,  Jan.  30,  1648.  Proclaim- 
ing Freedom  of  Fluvial  Navigation.     Koch/Schoell,  Hist.  Abr. 


244  EUROPE 

Scheldt 

Tr.,  IV,  218.  (Commentary:  ENGELHAEDT,  Hist,  du  Droit 
Fluv.  Conv.,  50.) 

1795 ;  May  16 :  The  Hague.  Treaty.  France/Netherlands.  Art.  18 : 
Established  Freedom  of  Navigation  for  the  Vessels  of  the  Con- 
tracting States  &  those  Nations  friendly  to  them  upon  the 
Hondt,  Meuse,  Rhine,  &  Scheldt.  Cussy/Hauterive,  ETC,  II, 
Pt.  1,  373;  Koch/Schoell,  Hist.  Abr.  Tr.,  IV,  293;  Martens,  RPT, 
V,  532. 

1814;  May  30:  Paris.  Treaty.  Austria,  France,  Great  Britain,  Por- 
tugal, Prussia,  Russia,  Spain,  Sweden.  Separate,  Secret  Art. 
Ill:  Providing  for  the  Establishment  of  Freedom  of  Naviga- 
tion. Hertslet,  Europe,  19;  Neumann,  RTA,  II,  474;  Sturdza, 
Rec.  Doc,  pg.  1.  (Commentary:  ENGELHARDT,  Hist,  du 
Droit  Fluv.  Conv.,  64,  77.) 

1815;  Mar.  20:  Vienna.  Treaty.  Formed  Annex  XVI  of  the  Final 
Act.  Clercq,  RTF,  II,  463;  Hertslet,  Europe,  78,  91;  Martens, 
NRT,  II,  447. 

1815 ;  Jime  9 :  Vienna.  Final  Act  of  the  Congress.  Liberty  of  Nav- 
igation. Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  I,  pt.  1,  72-96;  GB.  BFSP, 
II,  178;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  I,  3,  41;  Hertslet,  Europe,  272- 
276;  Neumann,  RTA,  11,  673;  Sturdza,  Rec.  Doc,  2-4.  (Com- 
mentary:   MOORE,  ILD,  I,  628.) 

1820;  Mar.  28:  Courtrai.  Treaty.  France/Netherlands.  Art.  I: 
Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  625. 

1831;  Nov.  15:  London.  Treaty.  Austria-Hungary,  Belgium, 
France,  Great  Britain,  Prussia,  Russia.  Providing  for  the  Sep- 
aration of  Belgium  from  the  Kingdom  of  the  Netherlands.  Art. 
9 :  Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation,  subject  only  to  Equitable 
Tolls,  in  conformity  with  Arts.  108-117  of  the  Final  Act  of  the 
Congress  of  Vienna.  Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  I,  pt.  2,  282-83; 
Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  IV,  13,  26,  31 ;  Hertslet,  Europe,  863-64. 

1833;  May  21:  London.  Convention.  France,  Great  Britain,  Neth- 
erlands. Art.  Ill;  Explanatory  Art.:  Pending  Definitive 
Treaty  between  the  Netherlands  &  Belgium  Complete  Freedom 
of  Navigation  Continues.  GB.  BFSP,  XX,  282;  Hertslet,  COM. 
TR.,  IV,  353,  355-56;  Hertslet,  Europe,  921-23. 

1833 ;  June  1 :  Notification.  Tendered  by  the  British  &  French  Gov- 
ernments. Concerning  Adherence  of  Belgium  to  Convention  of 
London;  May  21,  1833.     Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  V,  21. 

1833;  June  10:  Brussels.  Note.  Belgian  Government.  Accession 
of  Belgium  to  the  Convention  of  May  21,  1833.  Hertslet,  COM. 
TR.,  23;  Hertslet,  Europe,  924. 


EUROPE  245 

Scheldt 

1839;  Apr.  10:  London.     Treaty.     Belgium/Netherlands. 

Apr.     19 :     London.     Convention.     Austria-Hungary,     Belgium, 
France,  Great  Britain,  Netherlands,  Prussia,  Kussia.     Art.  IX 
Mutual  Liberty  of  Navigation.     Clercq,   RTF,  470-77;   Cussy/ 
Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  I,  IV,  573-77;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Y 
354,  359;  Hertslet,  Europe,  986-98;  Neumann,  RTA,  IV,  416 
421;  Sturdza,  Rec.  Doc,  854-55. 

1839 ;  June  5 :  Brussels.  Law.  Belgian  Government.  Reimburse 
ment  of  Navigation  Tolls  imposed  by  the  Dutch  Government, 
GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  37,  1352;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  V,  31. 

1839;  Oct.  23:  Antwerp.  Provisional  Agreement.  Belgium  &  the 
Netherlands.  Police  &  Navigation  Regulations.  Lagemans, 
Netherlands,  II,  Docs.  no.  174,  no.  175. 

1842;  Nov.  5:  The  Hague.  Treaty.  Belgium/Netherlands.  Arts. 
16-19 :  Freedom  of  Navigation.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  31,  815 ;  Hert- 
slet, Europe,  1029;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I,  III,  613,  617,  622; 
Sturdza,  Rec.  Doc,  856,  862. 

1843;  May  20:  Antwerp.  Convention.  Belgium  &  the  Netherlands. 
Police  &  Navigation  Regulations,  supplementing  Provisional 
Agreement  of  Oct.  23,  1839.  Cussy/Martens,  Rec  Man.,  V, 
306;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  37, 1848-49;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I,  V,  294- 
95,  307,  332,  334,  339,  381.     Sturdza,  Rec  Doc,  867. 

1843 ;  Aug.  8 :  Maastricht.  Convention.  Belgium  &  the  Netherlands. 
Arts.  12-13:  Protection  of  Fisheries.  Arts.  35-36:  Naviga- 
tion Regulations.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  35,  1202,  1220-21;  Hertslet, 
Europe,  1031. 

1845;  Nov.  10:  Brussels.  Treaty.  Belgium  &  the  United  States. 
Art.  IV:  Restitution  by  the  Belgian  Government  of  Tolls  im- 
posed by  the  Netherlands  upon  Vessels  of  the  United  States. 
Malloy,  UST,  65.  (NOTE:  Terminated  by  Notice  from  Bel- 
gian Government;  August  20,  1858.) 

1846;  July  29:  The  Hague.  Treaty.  Belgium/Netherlands.  Arts. 
1-29  &  Annex:  Navigation  Regulations.  Martens,  NRG,  Ser. 
I,  Vol.  IX,  273-292. 

1851 ;  Oct.  3 :  The  Hague.  Agreement.  Belgium  &  the  Netherlands. 
Regulating  Annual  Chomage  of  Waterways  communicating  be- 
tween the  Contracting  Parties.  Lagemans,  Netherlands,  III, 
Doc.  no.  269. 

1851;  Oct.  27:  London.  Treaty.  Belgium/Great  Britain.  Art.  7: 
Providing  for  Restitution  by  the  Belgian  Government  of  Transit 
Dues  levied  by  the  Netherlands  upon  British  Merchant- Vessels, 


246  EUROPE 

Scheldt 

Hertslet,  COM.  TR,  IX,  143.     (NOTE :     Terminated  by  Notice 
from  Belgian  Government;   Sept.  9,  1862.) 

1862;  July  23:  London.  Treaty.  Belgium/Great  Britain.  Arts. 
20-21 :  Abolition  of  Belgian  Tonnage  Dues ;  Reduction  of  Pilot- 
age Charges;  Identical  Treatment  respecting  Remission  of  Tolls 
imposed  by  the  Netherlands.     Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  XI,  71. 

1863 ;  May  12 :  The  Hagiie.  Treaty.  Belgium/Netherlands.  Redemp- 
tion of  the  Scheldt  Toll ;  stipulating  amount  agreed  upon  for  Cap- 
italization. Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  II,  I,  277;  GB. 
BFSP,  Vol.  53,  15;  Hertslet,  Europe,  1533;  Lagemans,  Nether- 
lands, V,  Doc.  no.  434.  (Commentary:  SCHUYLER,  Am. 
Dipl.,  349-50). 

1863 ;  May  20 :  Brussels.  Convention.  Belgium  &  the  United  States. 
Arts.  1-6 :     Redemption  of  Scheldt  Tolls.     Malloy,  UST,  73. 

1863;  June  8:  Agreement.  Belgium  &  Hanover.  Abolition  of 
Scheldt  Dues.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  53,  255. 

1863;  June  13:  Brussels.  Law.  Belgian  Government.  Concerning 
Negotiation  of  Treaty  with  Maritime  Powers  for  the  Extinction 
of  the  Scheldt  Dues.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  60,  43. 

1863 ;  July  15 :  Brussels.  Agreement.  Belgium  &  the  Netherlands. 
Governing  Reduction  of  Pilotage  Charges.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  53, 
230;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  I,  127. 

1863 ;  July  15 :  Brussels.  Notification.  Netherlands.  Explanatory 
Statement  issued  by  the  Minister  of  the  Netherlands.  GB. 
BFSP,  Vol.  53,  16 ;  Hertslet,  Europe,  1557. 

J.863;  July  16:  Brussels.  Treaty.  Austria-Hungary,  Belgium,  Bra- 
zil, Bremen,  Chile,  Denmark,  France,  Great  Britain,  Hamburg, 
Hanover,  Italy,  Lubeck,  Mecklenburg-Schwerin,  Netherlands, 
Oldenburg,  Peru,  Portugal,  Prussia,  Russia,  Spain,  Sweden  & 
Norway,  Turkey.  Redemption  of  Scheldt  Tolls.  Annex  I: 
Stipulations  provided  by  the  Treaty  of  The  Hague,  May  12,  1863, 
between  Belgium  &  the  Netherlands.  Clercq,  RTF,  VIII,  600; 
Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  II,  I,  275;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  53, 
8;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  XI,  1097;  Hertslet,  Europe,  1550,  1557; 
Lagemans,  Netherlands,  V,  Docs.  no.  437,  no.  437";  Martens, 
NRG.,  XVII,  pt.  2,  223,  235. 

1863;  July  20:  Brussels.  Treaty.  Belgium  &  the  United  States. 
Arts.  1-6:  Extinguishment  of  the  Scheldt  Dues.  GB.  BFSP, 
Vol.  54,  1131 ;  Malloy,  UST,  75-76. 

1863;  Aug.  3:  Brussels.  Convention.  Belgium  &  Great  Britain. 
Regulating  Mode  of  Payment  for  Redemption  of  Navigation 
Tolls.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  53,  17;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR,  XI,  1103; 
Hertslet,  Europe,  1561;  Martens,  ?[|IG^  Ser.  11,  I,  111. 


ETJEOPE  247 

^^^^4^!!f-3l;,^'"''^^'-     ^^eement.     Belgium  &  the  Netherlands. 

iariff  of  Pilotage  Charges.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  53,  233. 
1863;  Aug.  11:  Brussels.     Notification.     Belgian  GoVernment.     Ee- 
spectmg  the  Participation  of  the  Netherlands  in  the  Advantages 
stipulated  by  Art.  Ill  of  the  Treaty  of  Brussels;  June  16    1863 
Martens,  NKG,  Ser.  II,  I,  128. 
1863;  Sept.  19:  The  Hague.     Convention.     Belgium  &  the  Nether- 
lands.    Agreement  upon  Pilotage  &  Navigation  Eegulations  in 
conformity  with  Art.  V  of  Treaty  of  The  Hague;  May  12,  1863 
Lagemans,  Netherlands,  Vol.  V,  Doc.  no.  440;  Martens,  NRG 
Ser.  II,  I,  126. 
1863;   Sept.  29:  Convention.     Belgium  &  the  Netherlands.     Reduc- 
tion of  Pilotage  Charges.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.   53,  229-  Hertslet 
Europe,  1556. 
1864;  Sept.  8/20:  Athens.     Convention.     Belgium/Greece.     Arrange- 
ment for  the  Extinction  of  Scheldt  Toll.     Martens    NRG    Ser 
II,  I,  113. 
1864;  Sept.  28:  Brussels.     Treaty.     Belgium/Greece.     Mode  of  Pay- 
ment for  the  Redemption  of  the  Toll.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  54,  949 ; 
Hertslet,  Europe,  1556,  note. 
1864;  Oct.  23/Nov.  4:  Athens.     Additional  Agreement.     Belgium  & 
Greece.     Supplementing  Convention  of  Athens;  Sept.  8/20   1864 
Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  I,  114. 
1865;   Dec.   26:   Antwerp.     Agreement.     Belgium/Netherlands.     Re- 
specting Lighting  &  Marking  of  Navigable  Channel.     Martens 
NRG,  Ser.  II,  I,  131. 
1866;  Mar.  31:  The  Hague.     Convention.     Belgium  &  the  Nether- 
lands.    Establishment  of  Additional  Lighthouses  in  Estuary  & 
throughout  Navigable  Course.     Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  I,  130. 
1868 ;  Oct.  2 :  Accession  of  the  Argentine  Confederation  to  Treaty  of 

Brussels;  July  16,  1863.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  62,  649. 
1870;  Mar.  18:  Berlin.     Treaty.     Belgium  &  Mecklenburg-Schwerin. 
Arrangement  for  Redemption  of  Scheldt  Toll.     Martens    NRG 
Ser.  II,  I,  115. 
1870;  June  14:  Quito.     Convention.     Belgium/Ecuador.     Capitaliza- 
tion of  the  Scheldt  Toll.     Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  I,  116. 
1870;  Dec.   23:  Berlin.     Additional  Agreement.     Belgium  &  Meck- 
lenburg-Schwerin.    Amplifying  Treaty  of  Berlin,  March  18,  1870, 
governing  Redemption  of  Toll.     Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  I,  lie! 
1873 ;  Apr.  10 :  Flushing.     Convention.     Belgium  &  the  Netherlands. 
Modification  of  Pilotage  Regulations;  relieving  certain  types  of 
vessels  from  the  necessity  of  employing  pilots.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol. 
65,  507;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  I,  130. 


248  EUROPE 

Scheldt 

1873 ;  May  8 :  Antwerp.  Additional  Article.  Belgium  &  the  Nether- 
lands. Modifying  Convention  of  The  Hague,  March  31,  1866, 
respecting  adequate  lighting  of  navigable  channel.  Martens, 
NRG,  Ser.  II,  I,  135. 

1873 ;  Aug.  2 :  The  Hague.  Convention.  Belgium  &  the  Netherlands. 
Revising  Pilotage  Regulations;  establishing  additional  light- 
houses in  Estuary  &  along  Navigable  Course.  Martens,  NRG, 
Ser.  II,  129,  134. 

1875 ;  June  29 :  Antwerp.  Convention.  Belgium  &  the  Netherlands. 
Pilotage  Regulations;  relieving  vessels  which  secure  pilots  in 
the  English  Channel  or  Straits  of  Dover  for  Riverain  Ports  from 
all  Additional  Charges.  GB,  BFSP,  Vol.  66,  242;  Martens, 
NRG,  Ser.  II,  I,  224. 

1875;  Sept.  29:  The  Hague.  Treaty.  Belgium  &  the  Netherlands. 
Pilotage  Regulations.     Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  I,  223. 

1876;  Apr.  7:  Convention.  Belgium  &  Netherlands.  Amplification 
of  Pilotage  Regulations.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  67,  81. 

1880;  June  11:  Brussels.  Agreement.  Belgium  &  the  Netherlands. 
Rectification  of  Navigable  Channel;  Emplacement  of  Additional 
Beacons.     Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  VIII,  157,  161. 

1881 ;  Feb.  9 :  The  Hague.  Convention.  Belgium  &  the  Netherlands. 
Perfection  &  Completion  of  the  Buoying  of  the  Navigable  Course. 
Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  VIII,  156,  160. 

1884 ;  Apr.  3 :  The  Hague.  Agreement.  Belgium  &  the  Netherlands. 
Navigation  Regulations;  revising  stipulations  of  Convention  of 
Antwerp;  May  20,  1843.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  75,  321;  Hertslet, 
Europe,  3258. 

1891 ;  Mar.  25/Nov.  30 :  Flushing.  Agreement.  Belgium  &  the  Neth- 
erlands. Police  &  Navigation  Regulations.  Lagemans,  Nether- 
lands, Vol.  XI,  Doc.  no.  758. 

1901;  Mar.  23:  The  Hague.  Convention.  Belgium  &  the  Nether- 
lands. Protection  of  Navigation.  Deschamps/Renault,  RIT, 
(XXe  Siecle),  pg.  30,  31. 

1904;  Oct.  27:  Flushing.     Convention.     Belgium  &  the  Netherlands. 

1905 ;  Apr.  5 :  Establishment  of  Additional  Beacons  &  Buoys  through- 
out Navigable  Course.  Lagemans,  Netherlands,  XVI,  Doc.  no. 
958;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  Vol.  34,  579. 

1907 ;  Apr.  30/Oct.  8 :  The  Hague.  Agreement  &  Confirmatory  Con- 
vention. Belgium/Netherlands.  Improvement  of  Lighting  & 
Buoying  Facilities  along  Navigable  Channel.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol. 
100,  861;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  Ill,  I,  893. 

1908;  Sept.  18:  Brussels.     Law   (Royal  Decree).    Belgian  Govern- 


EUROPE  249 

Scheldt 

ment.     Sanitary   Regulations  applicable  to   Vessels   arriving  at 
Antwerp.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  101,  697. 

SCIIWALB 

1825;  July  5:  Paris.  Convention.  Bavaria/France.  Art.  I:  Flu- 
vial Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  727. 

1825;  Dec.  9:  Weissenburg.  Convention.  Bavaria  &  France.  Art. 
I:  Boundary  between  France  &  Rhenish  Bavaria.  Hertslet, 
Europe,  736. 

SCHWARZE-ELSTER;  or  SCHWARZ-WASSER-ELSTER 

1815;  May  18:  Vienna.  Treaty.  Austria,  Prussia,  Russia,  Saxony. 
Art.  17 :  Freedom  of  Navigation ;  adopting  Principles  embodied 
in  Annex  XVI  of  Final  Act  of  the  Congress.  Hertslet,  Eu- 
rope, 141. 

1815;  June  9:  Vienna.  Final  Act  of  the  Congress.  Art.  XV: 
Boundary.     Hertslet,  Eui'ope,  222. 

SCUTARI  LAKE 

1878 ;  July  13 :  Berlin.  Treaty.  Austria-Hungary,  France,  Ger- 
many, Great  Britain,  Italy,  Russia,  Turkey.  Art.  29:  Enjoy- 
ment of  Navigation  reserved  exclusively  for  the  two  adjacent 
Nations.     Hertslet,  Europe,  2783. 

SEMOY 

1779;  Nov.  18:  Brussels.  Treaty.  France/Hungary.  Art.  30:  Fa- 
cilitating Navigation  of  Semoy  &  Meuse.     Hertslet,  Europe,  2012. 

1785 ;  Nov.  8 :  Fontainebleau.  Treaty.  Austria  &  the  Netherlands. 
Protection  &  Regulation  of  Navigation.  Hertslet,  Europe,  2016; 
Koch/Schoell,  Hist.  Abr.  Tr.,  IV,  80;  Martens,  RPT,  II,  602- 
608. 

1820;  Mar.  28:  Courtrai.  Treaty.  France/Netherlands.  Art.  41: 
Freedom  of  Navigation;  Administration  of  Works  for  Rectifica- 
tion of  Navigable  Channel;  Thalweg  Boundary.  Cussy/Hauter- 
ive,  RTC,  I,  pt.  1,  242 ;  Hertslet,  Europe,  626. 

SPREE 

1815;  June  9:  Vienna.  Final  Act  of  the  Congress.  Art.  XV: 
Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  222. 

SQUINCIO  LAKE 

1844;  Nov.  28:  Florence.  Treaty.  Austria,  Lucca,  Modena,  Sar- 
dinia, Tuscany.  Arts.  4,  9 :  Constitutes  Portion  of  Interna- 
tional Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  1052,  1055. 


250  EUROPE 

Stecknitz  Canal 
STECKNITZ  CANAL 

1815 ;  June  9 :  Vienna.  Final  Act  of  the  Congress.  Art.  30 :  Free- 
dom of  Navigation  accorded  by  Prussia  to  Hanoverian  Subjects. 
Hertslet,  Europe,  234 ;  Martens,  NRT,  II,  399. 

1847;  June  23:  Copenhagen.  Treaty.  Denmark/Lubeck.  Art.  12: 
Respecting  Obstruction  to  Navigation;  Construction  of  Bridges 
over  the  Canal.     Martens,  NEG,  Ser.  I,  Vol.  X,  600,  608. 

STYE 

1829;  July  10:  Eadziwilow.  Treaty.  Austria  &  Eussia.  Art.  3: 
Fluvial  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  810. 

SUEE 

1815;  June  9:  Vienna.  Final  Act  of  the  Congress.  Art.  68: 
Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  252. 

1831:  Nov.  15:  London.  Treaty.  Austria,  Belgium,  France,  Great 
Britain,  Prussia,  Eussia.  Art.  II:  Thalweg  Boundary.  Hert- 
slet, Europe,  860. 

1839;  Apr.  19:  London.  Convention.  Austria-Hungary,  Belgium, 
France,  Great  Britain,  Netherlands,  Prussia,  Eussia.  Art.  II  & 
Annex:  Thalweg  Boundary;  supplanting  stipulations  of  Treaty 
of  London;  Nov.  15,  1831.     Hertslet,  Europe,  983-998. 

TAGLIATA 

1849;  Aug.  8:  Milan.  Treaty.  Austria  &  Modena.  Art.  Il:  Flu- 
vial Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  1114. 

TAGUS 

1829;  Aug.  31:  Madrid.  Treaty.  Portugal  &  Spain.  Eeciprocal 
Freedom  of  Navigation.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  49,  1345. 

1866;  Apr.  27:  Lisbon.  Treaty.  Portugal/Spain.  Art.  6:  Police  & 
Navigation  Eegulations  Facilitating  Fluvial  Transit.  Olivart, 
Colecc.  Tratados,  IV,  240-44. 

1872 ;  Dec.  20 :  Lisbon.  Treaty.  Portugal/Spain.  Art.  16 :  Coast- 
ing Trade  Forbidden;  Freedom  of  Navigation  Confirmed.  Oli- 
vart, Col.  Trat.,  VII,  315. 

1885;  Oct.  2:  Madrid.  Treaty.  Portugal/Spain.  Art.  55:  Eeci- 
procal Freedom  of  Navigation.  Olivart,  Colecc.  Tratados,  VIII, 
529,  551. 

TAETAEES 

1868 ;  July  11 :  Bayonne.     Convention.     France/Spain.     Art.  Ill,  sec. 

2 :     Eegulating  Use  of  Waters.     Hertslet,  Europe,  1844 ;  Olivart, 

Colecc.  Tratados,  IV,  310-11. 


EUROPE  251 

Terneuzen  Canal 

TERNEUZEN;  or  GHENT  CANAL 

1831;  Nov.  15:  London.  Treaty.  Austria,  Belgium,  France,  Great 
Britain,  Prussia,  Russia.  Art.  10:  Mutual  Freedom  of  Canal 
Navigation.  Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  I,  pt.  2,  283;  Hertslet, 
COM.  TR.,  IV,  13,  26,  31 ;  Hertslet,  Europe,  864. 

1839;  Apr.  10:  London.     Treaty.     Belgium/Netherlands. 

Apr.  19:  London.  Convention.  Austria-Hungary.  Belgium, 
France,  Great  Britain,  Netherlands,  Prussia,  Russia.  Art.  IX  & 
Annex :  Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Canal  Navigation.  Clercq,  RTF, 
470-77 ;  Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  I,  IV,  573-77 ;  Hertslet, 
COM.  TR.,  V,  354,  359;  Hertslet,  Europe,  986-98;  Neumann, 
RTA,  IV,  416,  421;  Sturdza,  Rec.  Doc,  854-55. 

1842;  Nov.  5:  The  Hague.  Treaty.  Belgium/Netherlands.  Arts. 
4,  5,  6,  20-49:  Navigation  Regulations.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  31, 
815;  Hertslet,  Europe,  1029;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I,  III,  613, 
617,  619,  622;  Sturdza,  Rec.  Doc,  856-57;  862. 

1843;  May  20:  Antwerp.  Convention.  Belgium  &  the  Netherlands. 
Police  &  Navigation  Regulations.  Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man, 
V,  306;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I,  V,  294-95,  307,  332,  334,  339,  367, 
381 ;  Sturdza,  Rec.  Doc,  867. 

1843 ;  Aug.  8 :  Maastricht.  Convention.  Belgium  &  the  Netherlands. 
Navigation  Regulations.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  35,  1202,  1220-21; 
Hertslet,  Europe,  1031. 

1851;  Apr.  24:  The  Hague.  Convention.  Belgium  &  the  Nether- 
lands. Modifying  Provisions  of  the  Treaty  of  Antwerp,  May  20, 
1843,  governing  Navigation.  Lagemans,  Netherlands,  III,  Doc. 
no.  257. 

1851 ;  Oct.  3 :  The  Hague.  Agreement.  Belgium  &  the  Netherlands. 
Regulating  Annual  Closure  of  Waterways  communicating  be- 
tween the  Contracting  Parties.  Lagemans,  Netherlands,  III, 
Doc.  no.  269. 

1853 ;  Feb.  10 :  The  Hague.  Convention.  Belgium  &  the  Netherlands. 
Providing  Additional  Navigation  Regulations.  Lagemans,  Neth- 
erlands, IV,  Doc.  no.  303. 

1862;  Sept.  24:  The  Hague.  Convention.  Belgium  &  the  Nether- 
lands. Navigation  Regulations.  Lagemans,  Netherlands,  V, 
Doc.  no.  419. 

1879;  Oct.  31:  Brussels.  Convention.  Belgium  &  the  Netherlands. 
Rectification  &  Maintenance  of  the  Canal.  Hertslet,  Europe, 
3251 ;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  VIII,  152. 

1888;  Jan.  5:  Brussels.  Agreement.  Belgium  &  the  Netherlands. 
Boundary.    Hertslet,  Europe,  3279. 


252  EUROPE 

Terneuzen  Canal 

1895 ;  June  29 :  Brussels.  Convention.  Belgium  &  the  Netherlands. 
Police  &  Navigation  Regulations.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  87,  403; 
Lagemans,  Netherlands,  XIII,  Doc.  no.  832. 

1902;  March  8:  The  Hague.  Convention.  Belgium  &  the  Nether- 
lands. Navigation  Regulations;  revising  certain  provisions  of 
Treaty  of  Brussels;  June  29,  1895.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  96,  809; 
Lagemans,  Netherlands,  XV,  Doc.  no.  923. 

TICINO 

1814;  May  30:  Paris.  Treaty.  Austria,  France,  Great  Britain,  Por- 
tugal, Prussia,  Russia,  Spain,  Sweden.  Separate,  Secret  Art.  II : 
Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  18. 

1834;  Dec.  4:  Turin.  Treaty.  Austria/Sardinia.  Suppression  of 
Contraband  aboard  Vessels  navigating  the  River.  Martens, 
NRT,  XIII,  198. 

1849;  Aug.  6:  Milan.  Treaty.  Austria/Sardinia.  Art.  3:  Bound- 
ary.    Hertslet,  Europe,  1110. 

1851 ;  Oct.  18 :  Vienna.  Treaty.  Austria/Sardinia.  Art.  12 :  Reci- 
procal Freedom  of  Navigation,  including  Tributaries.  Cussy/ 
Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  I,  VT,  626,  630;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  42, 
1285,  1287,  1297. 

1851;  Nov.  22:  Turin.  Convention.  Austria/Sardinia.  Art.  I: 
Suppression  of  Contraband  Trade.  Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man., 
Ser.  I,  VI,  649. 

1859;  Nov.  10:  Zurich.  Treaty.  Austria,  France,  Sardinia.  Arts. 
19,  21.     Hertslet,  Europe,  1410. 

TORNEA 

1809;  Sept.  5/17:  Friedrichshaven.  Russia/Sweden.  Arts.  IV,  V: 
Established  as  Frontier.  Koch/Schoell,  Hist.  Abr.  Tr.,  XIV, 
209. 

1810;  Nov.  8/20:  Tornea.  Treaty.  Russia/Sweden.  Art.  I:  Thal- 
weg Boundary.  Arts.  II,  IV:  Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Naviga- 
tion. Art.  V:  Guaranteeing  Mutual  Enjoyment  of  the  Salmon 
Fisheries  for  One  Hundred  Years.  Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  V, 
pt.  2,  515.     Hertslet,  Europe,  2028. 

1872;  Mar.  25/Apr.  6:  St.  Petersburg.  Agreement.  Russia  &  Swe- 
den. Protecting  &  Regulating  the  Fisheries  in  the  River  Tornea 
&  Affluents.     Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  I,  596. 

TORT 

1868;  July  11:  Bayonne.  Convention.  France/Spain.  Art.  Ill, 
Sec.  2 :  Governing  Utilization  of  Waters.  Hertslet,  Europe, 
1844;  Olivart,  Colecc.  Tratados,  IV,  310-11. 


EUEOPB  253 

Trave 

TRAVE 

1847;  June  23:  Copenhagen.  Treaty.  Denmark/Lubeek.  Art.  13: 
Respecting  Obstruction  to  Navigation;  Construction  of  Bridges 
over  the  River.     Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I,  Vol.  X,  604,  609. 

1853;  June  15:  Convention.  Denmark  &  Lubeck.  Supervision  & 
Protection  of  Fluvial  Fisheries.  Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man., 
Ser.  I,  VII,  302. 

TRESA 

1861;  Oct.  5:  Lugano.  Convention.  Italy  &  Switzerland.  Art.  V: 
Established  as  Fluvial  Boundary;  Jurisdiction  &  the  Fisheries 
being  reserved  for  the  Exclusive  Enjoyment  of  Switzerland. 
Hertslet,  Europe,  1492. 

UNSTRUT 

1815;  Sept.  22:  Paris.     Convention.     Prussia  &  Saxe- Weimar.     Art. 

8 :  Mutual  Liberty  of  Navigation.     Hertslet,  Europe,  309. 
1871;   Apr.   16:   Berlin.     Constitution.     German   Empire.     Art.    54: 

Navigation  of  Inland  Waterways.     Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions, 

I,  343. 

TJRBELCHA 

1856;  Dec.  2:  Bayonne.  Treaty.  France  &  Spain.  Arts.  IV,  V: 
Thalweg   Boundary.     Hertslet,   Europe,    1291,    1293. 

VALCARLOS 

1856;  Dec.  2:  Bayonne.  Treaty.  France  &  Spain.  Art.  7:  Thal- 
weg Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  1291,  1294. 

VANERA 

1866;  May  26:  Bayonne.  Treaty.  France/Spain.  Art.  9:  De- 
marcation of  Boundary.     Olivart,  Colecc.  Tratados,  IV,  246-262. 

1868 ;  July  11 :  Bayonne.  Convention.  France/Spain.  Art.  VI,  sec. 
2:  Governing  Utilization  &  Enjoyment  of  the  Waters.  Hert- 
slet, Europe,  1844;  Olivart,  Colecc.  Tratados,  IV,  320-22. 

VISTULA 

1648;  Oct.  24:  Osnabruck.  Treaty.  France,  Germany,  Sweden. 
Art.  IX:  Recognized  the  Validity  of  the  Established  Naviga- 
tion Tolls.     Dumont,  Corps  Univ.  Dipl.,  VI,  469,  480. 

1775;  Mar.  16:  Warsaw.  Treaty.  Austria  &  Poland.  Arts.  VI, 
VII:  Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation.  Cussy/Hauterive, 
RTC,  I,  pt.  2,  154. 


254  EUROPE 

Vistula 

1776;  Feb.  9:  Warsaw.  Convention.  Austria/Poland.  Art.  V: 
Mutual  Liberty  of  Navigation.     Neumann,  RTA,  I,  196. 

1807;  June  25/July  7:  Tilsitt.  Treaty.  France  &  Prussia.  Art.  20: 
Abolition  of  Navigation  Dues.  Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  III,  pt. 
1,  43,  267;  Martens,  RT,  VIII,  639,  665. 

1807;  June  25/July  7:  Tilsitt.  Treaty.  France  &  Russia.  Art.  8: 
Abolition  of  Fluvial  Navigation  tolls;  embodying  stipulations 
similar  to  those  included  in  Art.  20  of  Treaty  between  France 
&  Prussia.  Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  III,  pt.  1,  43,  267 ;  Martens, 
RT,  VIII,  639,  665. 

1815;  Apr.  21/May  3:  Vienna.  Treaty.  Austria/Russia.  Art.  24: 
Freedom  of  Navigation;  including  all  waterways,  whether  nat- 
ural or  artificial,  within  former  Kingdom  of  Poland.  Cussy/ 
Hauterive,  RTC,  I,  pt.  2,  183 ;  Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  I, 
III,  103-111;  Martens,  NRT,  II,  231. 

1815;  Apr.  21/May  3:  Vienna.  Treaty.  Prussia/Russia.  Arts.  4, 
5,  9,  &  22 :  Freedom  of  Navigation.  Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC, 
I,  pt.  2,  373,  375;  Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  I,  III,  111- 
116;  Martens,  NRT,  II,  242. 

1815;  May  4:  Vienna.  Convention.  Austria,  Prussia,  Russia.  Ac- 
cession of  Austria  to  the  Stipulations  imposed  by  the  Treaty 
of  Vienna  between  Prussia  &  Russia  of  May  3,  1815.  Martens, 
NRT,  III,  127. 

1815 ;  May  18 :  Vienna.  Treaty.  Austria,  Prussia,  Russia,  Saxony. 
Art.  22 :  Fluvial  Boundary.  Formed  Annex  IV  of  the  Final 
Act  of  the  Congress.     Hertslet,  Europe,  I,  143. 

1815 ;  June  9 :  Vienna.  Final  Act  of  the  Congress.  Arts.  2,  4,  14 : 
Thalweg  Boundary;  Navigation.  Hertslet,  Europe,  217;  Mar- 
tens, NRT,  II,  387.     (Commentary :     PHILLIMORE,  Int.  Law, 

1,  232.) 

1818;  Aug.  5/17:  St.  Petersburg.  Convention.  Austria  &  Russia. 
Arts.  1,  2,  3,  4-9 :  Liberty  of  Navigation  reserved  for  Exclusive 
Enjoyment  of  Riverain  States.     Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  V,  pt. 

2,  444;  Martens,  NRT,  IV,  540. 

1818;  Dec.  7/19:  St.  Petersburg.  Treaty.  Prussia  &  Russia.  Art. 
II:  Abolition  of  all  Navigation  Dues,  except  the  Toll  Levied  in 
Prussia,  termed  Schiffsgefdssgelder.  GB.  BFSP,  V,  945,  947; 
Martens,  NRT,  IV,  582-84. 

1825;  Feb.  27/Mar.  11:  Berlin.  Convention.  Prussia  &  Russia. 
Art.  V,  VI:  Mutual  Enjoyment  of  Fluvial  Navigation;  Free- 
dom from  Tolls.  Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  V,  pt.  2,  390;  GB. 
BFSP,  XII,  927;  Martens,  NRT,  VI,  688. 


EUKOPB  255 

Vistula 
1826;  Dec.  14/26:  Brody.     Treaty.     Austria  &  Eussia.     Arts.  5,  6: 
Fluvial  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  762, 

(NOTE:  1844;  March  4:  London.  Law.  Great  Britain.  British 
Order  in  Council  granting  specified  Trade  Privileges  to  Austrian 
Vessels  through  Assimilation  of  Ports  in  Estuary  of  Vistula  to 
Ports  within  Austrian  Dominion  by  reason  of  Freedom  of  Navi- 
gation enjoyed  by  the  Dual  Monarchy  throughout  Navigable 
Course.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  39,  1151;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR,  VI, 
48-50.) 

1864;  Aug.  20:  Cracow.  Treaty.  Austria  &  Russia.  Eectification 
of  Navigable  Channel  where  constituting  International  Bound- 
ary. GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  65,  333,  339 ;  Hertslet,  Europe,  3216 ; 
Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I,  XX,  288 ;  Neumann,  RT A,  III,  n.  s.,  485. 

1871 ;  May  27 :  Agreement.  Austria  &  Russia.  Regulation  of  Navig- 
able Course.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  65,  339. 

WAAL 

1868;  Oct.  17:  Mannheim.  Convention,  Baden,  Bavaria,  France, 
Hesse-Darmstadt,  Netherlands,  Prussia.  Art.  I :  Specifically  in- 
cluded as  Integral  Part  of  the  Rhine  System  &  subjected  to 
Identical  Regulations  ensuring  Freedom  of  Navigation.  Hert- 
slet, Europe,  1849, 

WARTHE;  or  WARTHA 

1705 ;  Nov.  18 :  Warsaw.  Treaty.  Poland  &  Sweden.  Art.  VI :  Es- 
tablished Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation;  providing,  further, 
for  the  Destruction  of  Obstacles  in  the  Navigable  Channel. 
Dumont,  Corps  Univ.  DipL,  VIII,  part  II,  pg.  1;  Koch/Schoell, 
Hist,  Abr,  Tr.,  XIII,  192. 

1815 ;  June  9 :  Vienna.  Final  Act  of  the  Congress.  Art.  II :  Bound- 
ary.    Hertslet,  Europe,  217. 

1818;  Dec.  7/19:  St.  Petersburg,  Treaty,  Prussia  &  Russia,  Art, 
II:  Abolition  of  all  Navigation  Dues,  except  the  Toll  imposed 
by  Prussia,  known  as  Schiffsgefdssgelder.  GB.  BFSP,  V,  945, 
947;  Martens,  NRT,  IV,  584, 

1825;  Feb.  27/Mar.  11:  Berlin.  Convention.  Prussia  &  Russia. 
Arts,  5,  6 :  Mutual  Enjoyment  of  Fluvial  Navigation ;  Freedom 
from  Tolls.  Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  V,  pt.  2,  390;  GB.  BFSP, 
XII,  927;  Martens,  NRT,  VI,  688. 

WEISSE-ELSTER 

1815;  May  18:  Vienna.     Treaty,     Austria,  Prussia,  Russia,  Saxony. 


256  EUROPE 

Weisse-Elster 

Art.  17:     Freedom  of  Navigation  adopting  Principles  embodied 
in  Annex  XVI  of  Final  Act  of  the  Congress.     Hertslet,  Europe, 
141. 
1815 ;  June  9  :  Vienna.     Final  Act  of  the  Congress.     Art.  15 :     Bound- 
ary.    Annex  IV:     Navigation.     Hertslet,  Europe,  222. 

WESER 

1648;  Oct.  24:  Osnabruck.  Treaty.  (Peace  of  Westphalia.)  Ger- 
many &  Sweden.  Art.  IX :  Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation. 
Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  I,  pt.  2,  195 ;  Dumont,  Corps  Univ.  Dipl., 
VI,  469,  480. 

1803;  Apr.  6:  Rastadt  (Ratisbon).  Convention.  France  &  Olden- 
burg. Arts.  IV-VIII:  Concerning  Regulation  &  Ultimate  Ex- 
tinction of  the  Elsfleth  Toll.     Clercq,  RTF,  II,  57. 

1818;  Nov.  14:  Aix-la-Chapelle.  Protocol  of  Congress.  Austria, 
France,  Great  Britain,  Prussia,  Russia.  Respecting  the  Elsfleth 
Toll.  Clercq,  RTF,  III,  174;  GB.  BFSP,  V,  1085;  Hertslet,  Eu- 
rope, 569 ;  Martens,  NRT,  IV,  554. 

1819 ;  Aug.  25 :  Convention.  Bremen  (Hanseatic  Cities)  &  Olden- 
burg. Providing  for  the  Suppression  of  the  Elsfleth  Toll  under 
the  Guarantee  of  the  Germanic  Confederation.  Cussy/Martens, 
Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  I,  III,  449 ;  Martens,  NRT,  IV,  645. 

1823 ;  Sept.  9 :  Minden.  Convention.  Bremen/Hanover.  Arts.  I- 
IV:  Freedom  of  Navigation.  Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser. 
I,  III,  570;  Hertslet,  Europe,  706;  Martens,  NRT,  VI,  336. 

1823;  Sept.  10:  Minden.  Convention.  Bremen/Prussia.  Concern- 
ing Art.  XV  of  the  General  Act  of  Navigation  signed  by  the 
Riverain  States;  Sept.  10,  1823.  Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man., 
Ser.  I,  III,  570 ;  Martens,  NRT,  VI,  338. 

1823;  Sept.  10:  Minden.  Treaty.  Brunswick/Hanover.  Regulating 
Tolls  imposed  on  Fluvial  Navigation.  Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC, 
I,  pt.  2,  337;  Martens,  RT.  SUPPL.,  X. 

1823;  Sept.  10:  Minden.  Convention.  Brunswick  &  Hesse-Cassel. 
Governing  Imposition  of  Navigation  Dues.  Martens,  RT. 
SUPPL.,  X. 

1823;  Sept.  10:  Minden.  Treaty.  Brunswick/Oldenburg.  Tariff  of 
Navigation  Tolls.     Martens,  RT.  SUPPL.,  X. 

1823;  Sept.  10:  Minden.  Convention.  Riverain  States:  Bremen, 
Brunswick,  Hanover,  Hesse-Cassel,  Lippe,  Oldenburg,  Prussia. 
General  Act  regulating  Freedom  of  Navigation.  Cussy/Mar- 
tens, Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  I,  III,  570 ;  Hertslet,  Europe,  710 ;  Martens. 
NRT,  VI,  301,  840. 


EUROPE  257 

Weser 

1825 ;  Dec.  21 :  Bremen.  Convention.  Brunswick/Hanover.  Tariff 
of  N'avigation  Tolls.  Cussy/Hauterive,  I,  pt.  2,  337;  Martens, 
RT.  SUPPL.,  X. 

1825;  Dee.  21:  Bremen.  Treaty.  Brunswick/Hesse-Cassel.  Regu- 
lating Imposition  of  Navigation  Dues.  Martens,  RT.  SUPPL., 
X. 

1825 ;  Dec.  21 :  Bremen.  Agreement.  Brunswick  &  Oldenburg. 
Tolls  applicable  to  Fluvial  Navigation.  Martens,  RT.  SUPPL., 
X. 

1825 ;  Dec.  21 :  Bremen.  Convention.  Bremen,  Brunswick,  Hanover, 
Hesse-Cassel,  Lippe,  Oldenburg,  Prussia.  General  Act  of  the 
Riparian  States  governing  Freedom  of  Navigation;  amplifying 
Convention  of  Minden;  Sept.  10,  1823.  Hertslet,  Europe,  738; 
Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I,  II,  572. 

1839;  Aug.  16:  Nenndorf.  Convention.  Bremen,  Brunswick,  Han- 
over, Hesse-Cassel,  Lippe,  Oldenburg,  Prussia.  Supplementary 
Regulations  adopted  by  the  Riverain  States  revising  the  Naviga- 
tion Convention  of  Minden;  Sept.  10,  1823.  Cussy/Martens, 
Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  I,  IV,  616;  Martens,  NRT,  XVI,  572;  Martens, 
NRG,  Ser.  I,  II,  572. 

1856 ;  Jan.  26 :  Bremen.  Treaty.  Bremen,  Hanover,  Hesse-Cassel, 
Prussia.  Arts.  I-III:  Suspending  Imposition  of  Navigation 
Tolls.  Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  I,  VII,  468;  Martens, 
NRG,  Ser.  I,  XVI,  part  1,  440. 

1871;  Apr.  16:  Berlin.  Constitution.  German  Empire.  Art.  54: 
Navigation  of  Inland  Waterways.  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions, 
I,  343. 

1876;  Mar.  6:  Berlin.  Convention.  Bremen,  Oldenburg,  Prussia. 
Concerning  the  Maintenance  of  Buoys  in  Lower  Course.  Mar- 
tens, NRG,  Ser.  II,  II,  290. 

1906;  Mar.  29:  Berlin.  Treaty.  Bremen  &  Prussia.  Dredging  of 
Navigable  Channel  throughout  Lower  Course.  Martens,  NRG, 
Ser.  Ill,  I,  331. 


WORIEMA.     See  JACOBS-ELF. 

WORMS 

1815;    June    9:    Vienna.     Final    Act    of    the    Congress.     Art.    25: 
Art.  66:  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  230,  249. 


258  ETJEOPE 

Worms 

1868;  Dec.  11:  Aix-la-Cliapelle.  Treaty.  Netherlands  &  Prussia. 
Art.  I:     Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  1862. 

YALPOUK 

1856;  Mar.  30:  Paris.  Treaty.  Austria,  France,  Great  Britain, 
Prussia,  Kussia,  Sardinia,  Turkey.  Art.  20:  Bessarabian 
Frontier;  Thalweg  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  1250,  1259. 

1857;  Jan.  6:  Paris.  Protocol  of  Conference.  Austria,  France, 
Great  Britain,  Prussia,  Kussia,  Sardinia,  Turkey.  Bessarabian 
Frontier;  Thalweg  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  1298-99. 

1857;  June  19:  Paris.  Treaty.  Austria-Hungary,  France,  Great 
Britain,  Prussia,  Eussia,  Sardinia,  Turkey.  Arts.  II,  IV:  Es- 
tablishment of  Boundaries  in  the  Danubian  Delta.  GB.  BFSP, 
Vol.  47,  60;  Hertslet,  COM.  TK.,  X,  960;  Hertslet,  Europe,  1321- 
22. 

YSSEL 

1835;  May  14:  The  Hague.  Law  (Royal  Decree).  Government  of 
the  Netherlands.  Imposition  of  Navigation  Tolls.  GB.  BFSP, 
Vol.  42,  1274,  note. 

1850;  Aug.  8:  The  Hague.  Law  (Royal  Decree).  Government  of 
the  Netherlands.  Abolition  of  Transit  &  Navigation  Dues;  im- 
posed in  conformity  with  the  Royal  Decree  of  May  14,  1835.  GB. 
BFSP,  Vol.  42,  1274;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR,  IX,  559;  Lagemans, 
Netherlands,  Doc.  no.  243,  no.  244. 

1894;  Mar.  10:  The  Hague.  Treaty.  Netherlands/Prussia.  Con- 
cerning Demarcation  of  International  Fluvial  Boundary.  GB. 
BFSP,  Vol.  87,  797;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  Vol.  22,  549. 

ZBOROWSKI 

1835 ;  Mar.  4 :  Berlin.  Treaty.  Prussia  &  Russia.  Art.  51 :  Estab- 
lishment of  Fluvial  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  955. 

ZBRUCZ.     See  PODHORCE. 

ZUID-WILLEMS-WAART  (CANAL) 

1831 ;  Nov.  15 :  London.  Treaty.  Austria,  Belgium,  France,  Great 
Britain,  Prussia,  Russia.  Art.  10:  Mutual  Freedom  of  Canal 
Navigation.  Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  I,  pt.  2,  283;  Hertslet, 
COM.  TR.,  IV,  13,  26,  31;  Hertslet,  Europe,  864. 

1839;  Apr.  10:  London.     Treaty.     Belgium/Netherlands. 

Apr.  19:  London.  Convention.  Austria-Hungary,  Belgium, 
France,  Great  Britain,  Netherlands,  Prussia,  Russia.  Art.  IX  & 
Annex :  Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Canal  Navigation.     Clercq,  RTF, 


EUROPE  259 

2uid-Willems-Waart 

470-Y7;  Cussy/Martens,  Eec.  Man.,  Ser.  I,  IV,  573-77;  Hertslet, 
COM.  TE.,  V,  354,  359;  Hertslet,  Europe,  986-98;  Neumann, 
ETA,  IV,  416,  421;  Sturdza,  Eec.  Doc.  854-55. 

1839;  Nov.  6:  Maastricht.  Agreement.  Belgium/Netherlands. 
Eegnlating  Canal  Navigation.  Lagemans,  Netherlands,  II,  Doc. 
no.  178. 

1842;  Nov.  5:  The  Hague.  Treaty.  Belgium/Netherlands.  Art. 
55:  Supervision  of  Canal  Navigation.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  31, 
815;  Hertslet,  Europe,  1029;  Martens,  NEG,  Ser.  I,  III,  613,  619, 
622;  Sturdza,  Eec.  Doc.  868. 

1843;  May  20:  Antwerp.  Convention.  Belgium/Netherlands.  Po- 
lice &  Navigation  Eegulations.  Cussy/Martens,  Eec.  Man.,  Ser. 
I,  V,  306;  Martens,  NEG,  Ser.  I,  V,  294^95,  307,  332,  334,  339, 
367,  381;  Sturdza,  Eec.  Doc,  867. 

1843;  Aug.  8:  Maastricht.  Convention.  Belgium/Netherlands. 
Navigation  Eegulations.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  35,  1202,  1220-21; 
Hertslet,  Europe,  1031. 

1846 ;  July  29 :  The  Hague.  Treaty.  Belgium/Netherlands.  Navi- 
gation ;  Diversion  of  Waters  for  Maintenance.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol. 
35,  1222-24;  Martens,  NEG,  Ser.  I,  IX,  274. 

1851 ;  Oct.  3 :  The  Hague.  Agreement.  Belgium/Netherlands. 
Eegulating  Annual  Chomage  of  Arterial  Waterways.  Lagemans, 
Netherlands,  III,  Doc.  no.  269. 

1856;  Dec.  11:  Brussels.  Agreement.  Belgium/Netherlands.  Mod- 
ifying certain  Provisions  of  the  Convention  of  Maastricht,  Nov. 
6,  1839,  governing  Navigation  of  the  Canal.  Lagemans,  Neth- 
erlands, IV,  Doc.  no.  360. 

1861;  Sept.  21:  Brussels.  Convention.  Belgium/Netherlands. 
Arts.  I,  II,  VI:  Diversion  of  Waters  from  Meuse  for  Mainte- 
nance of  Navigation.     Lagemans,  Netherlands,  V,  Doc.  no.  408. 

ZWIN  CANAL 

1648;  Jan.  30:  Miinster.  Treaty.  (Peace  of  Westphalia.)  Hol- 
land &  Spain.  Art.  14:  Navigation  expressly  Eeserved  to 
Dutch  Vessels.  Cussy/Hauterive,  ETC,  III,  3;  Dumont,  Corps 
Univ.  Dipl.,  VI,  pt.  1,  429;  Koch/Schoell,  Hist.  Abr.  Tr.,  Vol. 
I,  168;  Vol.  IV,  60;  Martens,  EPT,  VI,  146. 

1785;  Sept.  20:  Paris.  Treaty.  Austria/Netherlands.  Arts.  6,  15: 
Stipulations  of  Treaty  of  Miinster,  Jan.  30,  1648,  recognizing 
exclusive  Dutch  Sovereignty  &  Enjoyment  of  the  Canal,  Ee- 
newed.     Martens,  EPT,  II,  598-601. 

1785;  Nov.   8:   Fontainebleau.     Treaty.     Austria/Netherlands.     Art. 


260  EUROPE 

Zwin  Canal 

7:  Validity  of  Dutch  Claims  Recognized  by  Austria.  Koch/ 
Schoell,  Hist.  Abr.  Tr.,  IV,  80;  Martens,  KPT,  II,  602-608. 

1843 ;  Aug.  8 :  Maastricht.  Convention.  Belgium  &  the  Netherlands. 
Art.  31 :     Freedom  of  Navigation.     Hertslet,   Europe,   1031. 

1869;  Mar.  15:  Sluis  (L'Ecluse).  Convention.  Belgium  &  the  Neth- 
erlands. Demarcation  of  Fluvial  Boundary.  Lagemans,  Neth- 
erlands, VI,  Doc.  no.  523 ;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I,  XX,  546. 

1872;  May  24:  Bruges.  Convention.  Belgium/Netherlands.  Main- 
tenance of  Channels  &  Embankments  along  Navigable  Course. 
Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II,  I,  136. 


NORTH  AMERICA 
AGUAN;  or  ROMAN 


(NOTE : 

(1859 ;  Feb.  22 :  Contract.  North  American  Agricultural  &  Naviga- 
tion Company  and  Republic  of  Honduras.  Granting  Privilege 
of  Navigation.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  51,  907. 

(1860;  Feb.  20:  Law  (Presidential  Decree).  Government  of  Hon- 
duras. Extending  &  Prolonging  the  Navigation  Privileges  ac- 
corded by  the  Agreement  of  Feb.  22,  1859.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  51, 
907.) 

1880 ;  Nov.  1 :  Tegucigalpa.  Constitution.  Republic  of  Honduras. 
Chap.  IV;  Sec.  26:  Freedom  of  Navigation  of  Inland  Water- 
ways granted  to  All  Flags.     Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  17,  777. 

1904;  Sept.  2:  Tegucigalpa.  Constitution.  Republic  of  Honduras. 
Chap.  XVIII,  Art.  141 :  Navigation  of  Rivers  opened  freely 
to  the  Flags  of  All  Nations.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  7,  1255,  1272. 

APALACHICOLA;  or  CATAHOUCHE;  or  CHATTAHOOCHEE 

1782 ;  Nov.  30 :  Paris.     Treaty.     Great  Britain/United  States. 

1783;  Sept.  3:  Art.  II:  Thalweg  Boundary.  Malloy,  UST,  580-81; 
586-88. 

1795;  Oct.  27:  San  Lorenzo  el  Real.  Treaty.  Spain  &  the  United 
States.  Art.  II:  Establishment  of  International  Boundary  in 
Mid-Channel.  Malloy,  UST,  1640.  (NOTE:  Abrogated  by 
Art.  XII  of  Treaty  of  Washington;  Feb.  22,  1819.) 


NORTH    AMERICA  261 

Arkansas 
ARKANSAS 

1819;  Feb.  22:  Washington.  Treaty.  Spain  &  the  United  States. 
Art.  3 :  Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation ;  Common  Enjoyment 
of  Ancillary  Uses  where  forming  International  Frontier.  Mal- 
loy,  UST,  1651,  1653.  (NOTE:  Annulled  by  Annexation  of 
Texas  by  the  United  States.  New  Boundaries  established  by 
Treaty  of  Guadaloupe  Hidalgo,  Feb.  2,  1848,  between  Mexico  & 
the  United  States.     Malloy,  UST,  1107.) 

BELIZE;  or  JABON;  or  SIBUN;  or  WALLIS 

1783 ;  Sept.  3 :  Versailles.  Treaty.  Great  Britain  &  Spain.  Art.  6 : 
Demarcation  of  Fluvial  Boundary;  Recognition  of  Reciprocal  & 
Exclusive  Freedom  of  Navigation.  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  II,  235, 
239. 

1786;  July  14:  London.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/Spain.  Art.  2: 
Established  Boundary  in  Thalweg  Art.  3:  Granted  Freedom 
of  Navigation  to  British  Vessels  to  &  from  the  Sea.  Hertslet, 
COM.  TR.,  II,  247.  (NOTE:  Confirmed  by  First  Additional 
Article  of  Treaty  of  July  5,  1814.) 

BLACK  RIVER  CANAL.     See  CANALS. 

BOUNDARY  WATERWAYS  between  CANADA  &  the  UNITED 
STATES 
Including : 

Canals;  Niagara  River; 

Champlain  Lake;  Ontario  Lake; 

Detroit  River;  Rainy  Lake  &  River; 

Erie  Lake;  Saint  Clair  Lake  &  River; 

Huron  Lake,  comprising  North  Saint  Croix  River; 

Channel,       but       excluding  Saint  John  River; 

Georgian  Bay;  Saint  Lawrence  River; 

Lake  of  the  Woods;  Saint  Mary's  Lake  &  River; 

Memphremagog  Lake ;  Superior  Lake ; 

Superior-Lake  of  the  Woods  System  (See  NOTE). 

See  also  CANALS;  GREAT  LAKES  &  CONNECTING  WATERS. 

(NOTE : 

(superior-lake  op  the  woods  system;  notably:  Cypress  Lake;  Fowl 
Lakes;  Lac  Bois  Blanc;  La  Croix  Lake;  Little  Vermillion  Lake; 
Namecan  Lake;  Pigeon  River;   Saisaginaga  River. 


262  NORTH    AMERICA 

Boundary  Waterways 

The  Second  Article  of  the  Treaty  of  Washington,  August  9,  1842, 
provided  for  the  demarcation  of  the  International  Boundary  through 
these  Waters;  stipulating  further  that 

"  All  the  water  communications  and  all  the  usual  portages  along 
the  line  from  Lake  Superior  to  the  Lake  of  the  Woods,  and  also  Grand 
Portage,  from  the  shore  of  Lake  Superior  to  the  Pigeon  River,  as  now 
actually  used,  shall  be  free  and  open  to  the  use  of  the  citizens  and  sub- 
jects of  both  countries."     Malloy,  UST,  650,  652-53.) 

1782 ;  Nov.  30 :  Paris.     Treaty.     Great  Britain/United  States. 

1783;  Sept.  3:  ART.  II:  Designating  Water-Boundary;  St.  Croix 
River  to  Lake  of  the  Woods.     Malloy,  UST,  580-81 ;  586-88. 

1794;  Nov.  19:  London.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States.  Art. 
3:  Stipulated  that  British  Subjects,  Citizens  of  the  United 
States,  &  Indians  dwelling  on  either  side  of  the  International 
Boundary  should  at  all  times  be  privileged  freely  to  pass  &  repass 
by  Inland  Navigation  into  the  Domains  of  the  Contracting 
Parties, — ^  Hudson's  Bay  Country  being  excepted, —  upon  all  the 
Lakes,  Rivers,  &  Waters,  thereof.  Malloy,  UST,  590.  (Com- 
mentary:    MOORE,  ILD,  I,  674.) 

1796;  May  4:  Philadelphia.  Additional  Agreement.  Great  Britain/ 
United  States.  Supplementing  Art.  II.  of  Treaty  of  London, 
Nov.  19,  1794,  by  explicitly  providing  that  no  subsequent  Treaty 
Stipulation  by  either  of  the  High  Contracting  Parties  with  any 
Third  Power  should  diminish  in  any  degree  the  complete  Freedom 
of  Navigation  on  all  Boundary  Waterways.  Malloy,  UST,  607- 
609. 

1814;  Dec.  24:  Ghent.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States.  Arts. 
V,  Yl,  VII:  Demarcation  of  Water-Boundary  from  St.  Croix 
River  to  the  Lake  of  the  Woods.  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  II,  383 ; 
Malloy,  UST,  612-19. 

1817 ;  Apr.  28/29 :  Washington.  Agreement.  Great  Britain/United 
States.  Limiting  Naval  Forces  on  Boundary  Waters.  Hertslet, 
COM.  TR.,  IX,  763;  Malloy,  UST,  628-29.  (Commentary: 
MOORE,  ILD,  I,  692.) 

1818;  Apr.  28:  Washington.  Law  (Presidential  Proclamation). 
United  States.  Giving  effect  to  Agreement  of  Apr.  28/29,  1817. 
Am.  State  Paps.,  For.  Relats.,  IV,  202;  GB.  BFSP,  V,  1200-1201; 
Malloy,  UST,  630;  Richardson,  Messages  &  Papers,  II,  36;  U.  S. 
STAT.,  XI,  766. 

1842;  Aug.  9:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Arts.  1,  2,  3,  6,  7 :  Demarcation  of  Boundary ;  Freedom  of  Nav- 
igation.   Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  VI,  856;  Malloy,  UST,  650,  653. 


NORTH    AMERICA  263 

Boundary  Waterways 

1854 ;  June  5 :  Washington,  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Art.  4:  Privilege  of  Navigation.  Cussy/Martens,  Eec.  Man., 
Ser.  I,  338-342;  Hertslet,  COM.  TK,  IX,  1001;  Malloy,  UST, 
668,  671. 

1871;  May  8:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Arts.  26-28 :  Freedom  of  Navigation.  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol. 
13,  970,  982;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  61,  52;  Malloy,  UST,  711.  (Com- 
mentary :  Message  of  President  U.  S.  Grant  transmitting  Treaty 
between  Great  Britain  &  the  United  States;  Washington,  May  8, 
1871.  US.  FOR  RELS.,  1873,  Vol.  Ill,  261-424.  CALEB 
CUSHING;  The  Treaty  of  Washington  (1871);  its  negotiation, 
execution,  &  the  discussions  relating  thereto.  New  York,  1873, 
viii,  280.) 

1908;  Apr.  11:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Treaty  No.  I :  Boundary  &  Navigation  Stipulations.  Treaty  No. 
II:  Fisheries  Regulations.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  101,  224;  Malloy, 
UST,  Treaty  No.  I,  pg.  815 ;  Treaty  No.  II,  pg.  827. 

1909;  Jan.  11:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Navigation  Regulations;  Prevention  of  Pollution;  &  Supervision 
of  Diversion  of  Waters  for  Power  &  Irrigation.  Art.  I:  Pro- 
vided that  the  Navigation  of  All  Boundary  Waterways  should  per- 
petually continue  Free  to  Both  Nations.  Charles,  UST,  39,  47; 
GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  102,  137 ;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  Ill,  IV,  208 ;  US. 
FOR.  RELS,  1910,  pg.  533. 

1911 ;  May  19 :  Ottawa.  Law.  Canadian  Government.  Act  relating 
to  the  Establishment  of  the  International  Joint  Commission  in 
execution  of  Treaty  of  Washington ;  Jan.  11,  1909.  GB.  BFSP, 
Vol.  104,  390. 

1914;  Apr.  3:  Ottawa.  Law.  Canadian  Government.  Act  comply- 
ing with  the  Stipulations  of  the  Waterways  Treaty;  Washington, 
Jan.  11,  1909.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  107,  413. 

CANALS  See  also:    BOUNDARY  WATERWAYS; 

GREAT  LAKES  &  CONNECTING  WATERS. 

CANADIAN  CANALS;  Freedom  of  Navigation  enjoyed  by  Vessels 

of  the  United  States. 
Chambly;  St.  Andrews; 

Cornwall  (St.  Lawrence  System)  ;  St.  Lawrence  System,  comprising 
Lachine  (St.  Lawrence  System) ;       the    Cornwall,    Lachine,    Sou- 
Murray;  langes,  &  Williamsburg  Canals; 
Ottawa;                                              St.  Ours; 
Rideau;                                              St.  Peters; 


264  NOETH    AMERICA 

Canals;  Canadian. 

Sault  Sainte  Marie;  Welland; 

Soulanges     (St.    Lawrence    Sys-      Williamsburg,      comprising     the 
tern)  ;  Farran's  Point,  Galops,  &  Ra- 

Trent;  pide    Plat    Canals;    (St.    Law- 

rence  System). 

CANALS  OF  THE  UNITED   STATES;  Freedom  of  Navigation 

enjoyed  by  Canadian  Vessels. 
Black  River;  Oswego; 

Champlain,  or  Whitehall;  St.  Clair  Flats; 

Erie;  Sault  Sainte  Marie. 

1854 ;  June  5 :  Washington.     Treaty.     Great  Britain/United  States. 

Art.  4:  Privilege  of  Navigation  on  Canals  of  St.  Lawrence  System 
accorded  to  Citizens  &  Inhabitants  of  the  United  States.  Cussy/ 
Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  I,  338-342;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR., 
IX,  1001;  Malloy,  UST,  668,  671.  (NOTE:  Upon  notice  from 
the  United  States  this  convention  was  terminated;  Mar.  17, 
1866.) 

1871 ;  May  8 :  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Art.  27 :  Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation  established  upon  cer- 
tain Frontier  Canals.  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  13,  970,  982; 
GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  61,  52;  Malloy,  UST,  700,  711;  US.  FOR. 
RELATS.,  1871,  531.  (Commentary:  GUSHING,  Treaty  of 
Washington,  242;  MOORE,  Int.  Arbs.,  195;  MOORE,  ILD,  I, 
679-80;  WESTLAKE,  Int.  Law,  I,  158.) 

(NOTE: 

(1888 ;  Aug.  23 :  Washington.  Special  Message  to  Congress  des- 
patched by  President  Grover  Cleveland.  Concerning  Violation 
by  the  Canadian  Government  of  Art.  27  of  the  Treaty  of  Wash- 
ington,— May  8,  1871, — granting  Freedom  of  Navigation  for 
American  Vessels  upon  Canadian  Canals.  Moore,  ILD,  I,  681; 
Richardson,  Messages  &  Papers,  VIII,  626;  US.  FOR.  REL., 
1888,  I,  813,  816,  824-25;  US.  House  Ex.  Doc,  50th  CONG., 
1st  Sess.,  No.  7. 

(1890;  Apr.  11:  Ottawa.     Law  (Orders  in  Council). 

(1892;  Apr.  4:  Canadian  Government.  Imposing  Discriminatory 
Canal  Tolls  upon  American  &  Canadian  Vessels  contrary  to  the 
Provisions  of  Art.  27  of  the  Treaty  of  Washington ;  May  8,  1871. 
US.  FOR.  REL.,  1892,  251-254,  272-74,  277-287,  301-304, 
355-339. 


NORTH    AMERICA  265 

Canals 

(1892;  Aug.  18:  Washington.  Proclamation  by  President  Harrison. 
Announcing  Adoption  of  Ketaliatory  Measures  by  the  United 
States;  sanctioned  by  Act  of  Congress  of  July  26,  1892.  Eich- 
ardson.  Messages  &  Papers,  IX,  290;  US.  FOE.  Eel.,  1892,  339. 

(1892;  Dec.  6:  Washington.  Fourth  Annual  Message  of  President 
Harrison.  Eeference  to  the  Suspension  of  the  Free  Use  of  St. 
Mary's  Canal  by  Canadian  Vessels  as  Eetaliation  for  Exactions 
levied  upon  American  Vessels  navigating  Canadian  Canals  con- 
trary to  Art.  27  of  Treaty  of  Washington;  May  8,  1871.  Eich- 
ardson.  Messages  &  Papers,  IX,  314. 

(1893;  Feb.  13:  Ottawa.  Law  (Order  in  Council).  Canadian  Gov- 
ernment. Establishing  Equality  of  Enjoyment;  abolishing  all 
provisions  granting  toll  rebates  to  Canadian  vessels.  Eichard- 
son,  Messages  &  Papers,  IX,  378. 

(1893;  Feb.  23:  Washington.  Proclamation  of  President  Harrison. 
Establishing  Equality  of  Enjoyment;  withdrawing  Proclamation 
of  Aug.  18,  1892,  imposing  measures  of  retaliation  upon  Cana- 
dian vessels  navigating  American  Canals.  Eichardson,  Mes- 
sages &  Papers,  IX,  379 ;  US.  FOE.  EEL.,  1893,  329,  331,  337,  340. 

(1893;  Dec.  4:  Washington.  First  Annual  Message  of  President 
Cleveland.  Eeferring  to  Canal  Tolls  Controversy  &  its  ultimate 
amicable  Settlement.  Moore,  ILD,  I,  683;  Eichardson,  Messages 
&  Papers,  IX,  437.) 

1896;  Apr.  17:  Ottawa.  Law  (Order  in  Council).  Canadian  Gov- 
ernment. Abolishing  All  Fees  formerly  imposed  upon  Vessels 
Navigating  Canadian  Inland  Waterways  above  Montreal.  US. 
FOE.  EEL.,  1896,  364. 

1909 ;  Jan.  11 :  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Art.  I:  Provided  that  the  Navigation  of  All  Boundary  Water- 
ways should  continue  free  perpetually  to  Both  Nations;  this 
Eight  being  extended  to  all  canals  connecting  boundary  water- 
ways, now  existing,  or  which  may  hereafter  be  constructed,  on 
either  side  of  the  International  Boundary.  Charles,  UST,  39, 
47;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  102,  137;  Martens,  NEG,  Ser.  Ill,  IV,  208; 
US.  FOE.  EEL.,  1910,  533. 

1914 ;  Apr.  3 :  Ottawa.  Law.  Canadian  Government.  Act  comply- 
ing with  the  Stipulations  of  the  Waterways  Treaty ;  Washington, 
Jan.  11,  1909.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  107,  413. 

CHAMALECON 

1880;  Nov.  1:  Tegucigalpa.  Constitution.  Eepublic  of  Honduras. 
Chap.  IV,  Sec.  26:  Freedom  of  Navigation  extended  to  Vessels 
of  all  Nations.    Hertslet,  COM.  TE.,  Vol.  17,  777. 


266  NORTH    AMERICA 

Chamalecon 

1904 ;  Sept.  2 :  Tegucigalpa.  Constitution.  Republic  of  Honduras. 
Chap.  XVIII,  Art.  141:  Navigation  opened  freely  to  Merchant 
Vessels  of  All  Nations.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  97,  1255,  1272. 

CHAMBLY  CANAL.     See  CANALS. 

CHAMPLAIN;  or  WHITEHALL  CANAL.     See  CANALS. 

CHAMPLAIN  LAKE.     See  also  BOUNDAEY  WATERWAYS. 

1817;  Apr.  28/29.  Washington.  Agreement.  Great  Britain/United 
States.  Restricting  Naval  Forces  on  the  Lake  to  One  Vessel, 
respectively.  Am.  State  Paps.,  For.  Rels.,  IV,  202;  GB.  BFSP, 
V,  1200;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  IX,  763;  Malloy,  UST,  628-29. 
(Commentary:  FOSTER,  Am.  Dipl.,  252.) 

(NOTE : 

(1848;  Apr.  7:  Washington.  Letter  from  Mr.  Buchanan,  Federal 
Secretary  of  State,  to  the  Governors  of  New  York  &  Vermont, 
respecting  the  Freedom  of  Navigation  enjoyed  by  Citizens  & 
Subjects  of  Great  Britain  &  the  United  States  upon  the  Lake. 
MOORE,  ILD,  I,  677;  citing  36  MS.  DOM.  LET.,  405.) 

1908;  Apr.  11:  Washington.     Treaty.     Great  Britain/United  States. 

Treaty  No.  II :     Protection  of  Fisheries.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  101, 

224;  Malloy,  UST,  827. 
1909;  Jan.  11:  Washington.     Treaty.     Great  Britain/United  States. 

Art.   I:   Freedom  of  Navigation.     Charles,   UST,   39,   47;    GB. 

BFSP,  Vol.  102,  137;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  IV,  208;  US,  FOR. 

REL.,  1910,  pg.  533. 
CHATTAHOOCHEE;     or     CATAHOUCHE.     See     APALACHI- 

COLA. 
CHOLUTECA 
1880;  Nov.  1:   Tegucigalpa.     Constitution.     Republic  of  Honduras. 

Chap.  IV,  Sec.  26 :  Freedom  of  Navigation  granted  to  Vessels 

of  all  Nations.     Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  17,  777. 
1904;  Sept.  2:  Tegucipalpa.     Constitution.     Republic  of  Honduras. 

Chap.  XVIII,  Art.  141 :  Navigation  extended  freely  to  Vessels  of 

all  Nations.     GB.  BFSP.,  Vol.  97,  1255,  1272. 
COCO;  or  SEGOVIA;  or  WANKS;  or  YORO 
Freedom  of  Navigation  established  by  Identical  Provisions  applicable 

to  CHOLUTECA  River. 

COLORADO 

1848;  Feb.  2:  Guadalupe  Hidalgo.  Treaty.  Mexico  &  the  United 
States.     Art.  V:  Demarcation  of  International  Boundary.     Art. 


NORTH    AMERICA  267 

Colorado 

VI:  Established  Freedom  of  Navigation  in  Lower  Course  & 
through  Gulf  of  California.  Malloy,  UST,  1107-1111.  (Com- 
mentary: ENGELHAKDT,  Hist,  du  Droit  Eluv.  Conv.,  83; 
MOOEE,  ILD,  I,  639.) 

1853;  Dec.  30:  Washington.  Treaty.  Mexico/United  States.  Art. 
IV :  Recognition  of  Right  of  Navigation  through  Mexican  Terri- 
tory.    Malloy,  UST,  1123. 

1884;  Nov.  12:  Washington.  Treaty.  Mexico/United  States. 
Demarcation  of  Boundary  Line.  Malloy,  UST,  1159;  Martens, 
NRG,  Ser.  II,  XIII,  675. 

1889 ;  March  1 :  Washington.  Treaty.  Mexico/United  States.  Art. 
I:  Fluvial  Boundary  Disputes  to  be  referred  to  an  International 
Boundary  Commission.  Arts.  II  &  III:  Institution  of  the  In- 
ternational Boundary  Commission.  Art.  V :  Regulating  Works 
or  Obstructions  which  infringe  the  stipulations  of  Treaty  of 
Nov.  12,  1884  &  Feb.  2,  1848,  prohibited.     Malloy,  UST,  1167-69. 

1895 ;  Oct.  1 :  Washington.  Convention.  Mexico/United  States. 
Agreement  prolonging  the  terms  of  the  Treaty  of  March  1,  1889. 
Malloy,  UST,  1175-76. 

COLUMBIA 

Including  Passage  of  Cascade  &  Celilo  Canals. 

1846 ;  June  15 :  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Art.  II:  Granted  Freedom  of  Navigation  to  British  Vessels  be- 
tween Canadian  Territory  and  the  Sea.  Ilertslet,  COM.  TR., 
VIII,  931;  Malloy,  UST,  656-57.  (Commentary:  HALL,  Int. 
Law,  5th  Edit.,  109-110;  MOORE,  ILD,  I,  638;  TWISS,  Law 
of  Nations  (Peace),  I,  sees.  125,  126;  WEBSTER,  Writings, 
Vol.  IX,  76.) 

1909 ;  Jan.  11 :  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Art.  I :  Mutual  Liberty  of  Navigation.  Charles,  UST,  39 ;  GB. 
BFSP,  Vol.  102,  137 ;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  IV,  208 ;  US.  FOR. 
RELS.,  1910,  pg.  533. 

CORNWALL  CANAL.     See  CANALS. 

CYPRESS  LAKE.  See  BOUNDARY  WATERWAYS;  Superior- 
Lake  of  the  Woods  System. 

DETROIT.  See  also :     BOUNDARY  WATERWAYS  ; 

GREAT  LAKES  &  CONNECTING  WATERS. 

1842;  Aug.  9:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Art.  7:  All  Channels  freely  available  for  the  Vessels  of  both 


268  NORTH    AMEEICA 

Detroit 

Nations,  regardless  of  precise  location  of  International  Boundary. 
Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  VI,  856;  Malloy,  UST,  650,  654^55. 

EEIE  BARGE  CANAL.      See  CANALS. 

ERIE  LAKE  See  also:    BOUNDARY  WATERWAYS; 

GREAT  LAKES  &  CONNECTING  WATERS. 

1782 ;  Nov.  30 :  Treaty. 

1783 ;  Sept.  3 :  Paris.     (See  Boundary  Waterways.) 

1814 ;  Dec.  24 :  Ghent.     Treaty.     Great  Britain/United  States.     Arts. 

VI,    VII:    Demarcation    of    International    Boundary.     Hertslet, 

COM.  TR.,  II,  383;  Malloy,  UST,  612-19. 
1822 ;  June  18 :  Utica.     Agreement.     Commissioners  of  Great  Britain 

&    the    United    States.     Concerning   the    Establishment    of    the 

Water-Boundary  in  conformity  with  Art.  VI  of  Treaty  of  Ghent; 

Dec.   24,   1814.     Hertslet,   COM.   TR.,  IV,  493.     Malloy,  UST, 

620-23. 
1908;  Apr.  11:  Washington.     Treaty.     Great  Britain/United  States. 

Treaty  No.  II:  Protection  of  Fisheries.    GB.  BFSP.,  Vol.  101, 

224;  Malloy,  UST,  826. 
1909;  Jan.  11:  Washington.     Treaty.     Great  Britain/United  States. 

Art.  I:  Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation.     Charles,  UST,  39, 

47;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  102,  137;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  IV,  208; 

US.  FOR.  RELS.,  1910,  pg.  533. 

FARRAN'S  POINT  CANAL.     See  CANALS. 

FOWL  LAKES.  See  BOUNDARY  WATERWAYS ;  Superior-Lake 
of  the  Woods  System. 

GALOPS  CANAL.     See  CANALS. 

GILA 

1848;  Feb.  2:  Guadalupe  Hidalgo.  Treaty.  Mexico/United  States. 
Art.  V :  Thalweg  Boundary.  Art.  VII :  Navigation  Free  &  Com- 
mon to  the  Vessels  &  Citizens  of  both  Countries.  Malloy,  UST, 
1107-1111.     (Commentary:  MOORE,  ILD,  I,  639.) 

1853;  Dec.  30:  Washington.  Treaty.  Mexico/United  States.  Art. 
IV:  Stating  that  by  reason  of  the  territorial  cession  stipulated 
under  Art.  I  the  provisions  under  Arts.  6  &  7  of  the  Treaty 
of  Guadalupe  Hildago,  Feb.  2,  1848,  assuring  Freedom  of  Naviga- 
tion, become  inoperative.     Malloy,  UST,  1123. 

GOASCORAN 

1880;  Nov.  1:  Tegucigalpa.     Constitution.     Republic  of  Honduras. 


NORTH    AMERICA  269 

Goascoran 

Chap.  IV,  Sec.  26 :  Freedom  of  Navigation  granted  to  All  Flags. 
Hertslet,  COM.  TR,  Vol.  17,  777. 
1904;  Sept.  2:   Tegucigalpa.     Constitution.     Republic  of  Honduras. 
Chap.  XVIII,  Art.   141 :   Navigation  opened  to   the  Vessels  of 
All  Nations.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  97,  1255,  1272. 

GREAT  LAKES  &  CONNECTING  WATERS. 

See  also :     BOUNDARY  WATERWAYS ; 

CANALS. 
GREAT  LAKES:     Erie;  Huron;  Ontario;  Superior. 

CONNECTING  WATERS:  Natural;  Detroit  River;  Niagara  River; 
St.  Clair  Lake  &  River;  St.  Mary's  Lake  &  River.  Artificial 
(Canals);  Saint  Clair  Flats;  Sault  Sainte  Marie;  and  Welland 
Canals. 

1814;  Dec.  24:  Ghent.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States.  Arts 
6,  7:  Demarcation  of  International  Boundary.  Hertslet,  COM. 
TR.,  II,  383;  Malloy,  UST,  612-19. 

1817;  Apr.  28/29:  Washington.  Agreement.  Great  Britain  &  the 
United  States.  Limiting  Naval  Forces  on  the  Great  Lakes. 
Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  IX,  763;  Malloy,  UST,  628-29.  (Com- 
mentary: AM.  ACAD.  POL.  &  SOC.  SC,  Vol.  45,  57;  AM. 
JOUR.  INT.  LAW.,  Jan.  1915,  pg.  270;  CHAMBERLAIN, 
Treaties  .  .  .  pg.  102;  FOSTER,  Am.  Dipl.,  252;  G.  HUNT, 
Writings  .  .  .  Jas.  Madison,  VIII,  345 ;  LAWRENCE,  Int.  Law, 
598;  MOORE,  ILD,  /,  .  .  .  677,  692  .  .  .;  Vol.  V,  214,  323, 
RICHARDSON,  Messages  &  Papers,  IX,  333;  STOCKTON, 
Int.  Law,  122,  124;  US.  H.  EX.  DOC,  No.  471,  56th  Cong.,  1st 
Sess,  pg.  28-34.) 

1818;  Apr.  28:  Washington.  Law  (Presidential  Proclamation). 
United  States.  Giving  effect  to  the  Naval  Agreement  of  Wash- 
ington; Apr.  28/29,  1817.  Am.  Stat.  Paps.,  For.  Rels.,  IV,  202; 
GB.  BFSP,  V,  1200;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  IX,  762;  Malloy, 
UST,  630;  Richardson,  Messages  &  Papers,  II,  36. 

1822;  June  18:  Utica.  Agreement.  Commissioners  of  Great  Britain 
&  the  United  States.  Concerning  the  Demarcation  of  the  Inter- 
national Water-Boundary  in  conformity  with  Art.  VI  of  Treaty 
of  Ghent;  Dec.  24,  1814.  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  IV,  493;  Malloy, 
UST,  620-23. 

1842;  Aug.  9:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Arts.  1,  2,  3,  6,  7:  Establishment  of  Boundary;  Freedom  of 
Navigation.  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  VI,  856;  Malloy,  UST,  650, 
653.     (Commentary:  GRAND  ALL,  Treaties  ...  526;  MOORE, 


270  NORTH    AMERICA 

Great  Lakes  &  Connecting  Waters 

Int.  Arbs.,  194;  MOORE,  ILD,  I,  678;  SNOW,  Am.  DipL,  80- 
82;  WEBSTER,  Works,  VI,  351-52.) 

1854;  June  5:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Art.  IV :  Recognized  Mutual  Liberty  of  Navigation.  Cussy /Mar- 
tens, Ree.  Man.,  Ser.  I,  VII,  338-342;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  IX, 
1001;  MaUoy,  UST,  668,  671. 

1871;  May  8:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Art.  27:  Welland  &  St.  Clair  Flats  Canal  open  freely  to  naviga- 
tion by  Vessels  of  both  Nations.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  61,  pg.  52; 
Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  XIII,  970,  982 ;  Malloy,  UST,  711.  (Com- 
mentary: MOORE,  Int.  Arbs.,  170.) 

1908;  Apr.  11:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Treaty  No.  I :  Boundary  &  Navigation  Stipulations.  Treaty  No. 
II:  Fisheries  Regulations.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  101,  224;  Malloy, 
UST,  Treaty  No.  I,  pg.  815 ;  Treaty  No.  II,  pg.  826. 

1909;  Jan.  11:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Navigation  Regulations;  Prevention  of  Pollution;  Supervision 
of  Diversion  of  Waters  for  Power  &  Irrigation.  Art.  I:  Navi- 
gation of  Great  Lakes  &  Connecting  Waters  perpetually  Free 
to  Vessels  of  both  Nations.  Charles,  UST,  39,  47 ;  GB.  BFSP, 
Vol.  102,  137;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  IV,  208;  US.  FOR.  RELS., 
1910,  pg.  533. 

1911 ;  May  19 :  Ottawa.  Law.  Canadian  Government.  Act  relat- 
ing to  the  Establishment  of  the  International  Joint  Commission 
in  conformity  with  Stipulations  of  Treaty  of  Washington;  Jan. 
11,  1909.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  104,  390. 

1914;  Apr.  3:  Ottawa.  Law.  Canadian  Government.  Act  comply- 
ing with  Provisions  of  the  Waterways  Treaty ;  Washington,  Jan. 
11,  1909.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  107,  413. 

HONDO ;  or  RIO  HONDO 

1783;  Sept.  3:  Versailles.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/Spain.  Art.  VI: 
Demarcation  of  Fluvial  Boundary;  Recognition  of  Reciprocal 
&  Exclusive  Freedom  of  Navigation.  Hertslet,  COM.  TR,  II, 
235,  239. 

HONDURAS 

By  virtue  of  the  Fundamental  Law,  Merchant  Vessels  of  all 
Nations  may  freely  navigate  the  Inland  Waterways  of  Hon- 
duras ; 

Notably  the  Rivers: 


NORTH    AMEKICA  271 

Honduras 

AGUAN;  or  EOMAN;  LEAN; 

CHAMALECON;  NEGEO;  or  TINTO; 

CHOLUTECA;  PATUCA,  with  Tributary  GUA- 

COCO;  or  SEGOVIA;  or  YAPE; 

WANKS;  or  YORO;  ULUA,   with   Tributaries    SAN- 

GOASCORAN;  TIAGO,  SULACO,  &  YOJOA. 

1880;   Nov  1:   Tegucigalpa.     Constitution.     Republic   of   Honduras. 

Chap.    IV,   Sec.   26:   Freedom  of  Navigation  granted   to   ALL 

Flags.    Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  17,  777. 
1904;  Sept.  2:  Tegucigalpa.     Constitution.     Republic  of  Honduras. 

Chap.  XVIII,  Art.  141 :  Navigation  accorded  freely  to  Merchant 

Vessels  of  All  Nations.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  97,  1255,  1272. 

HURON  LAKE  See  also:    BOUNDARY  WATERWAYS; 

GREAT  LAKES  AND  CONNECTING  WATERs! 

1782;  Nov.  30:  Treaty. 

1783;  Sept.  3:  Paris.     (See  Boundary  Waterways.) 

1814;  Dec.  14:  Ghent.     Treaty.     Great  Britain/United  States.     Arts. 

VI,    VII:   Demarcation    of   International    Boundary.     Hertslet, 

COM.  TR,  II,  383;  Malloy,  UST,  612-19. 
1822 ;  June  18 :  Utica.     Agreement.     Commissioners  of  Great  Britain 

&    the    United    States.     Concerning   the    Establishment    of    the 

Water-Boundary  in  conformity  with  Art.  VI  of  Treaty  of  Ghent ; 

Dec.   24,    1814.     Hertslet,   COM.    TR.,   IV,   493;   Malloy,   UST, 

620-23. 
1908;  Apr.  11:  Washington.     Treaty.     Great  Britain/United  States. 

Treaty  No.  II:  Regulations  for  Protection  of  Fisheries  in  the 

Lake  &  North  Channel;  Georgian  Bay  being  explicity  excluded. 

GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  101,  224;  Malloy,  UST,  827. 
1909;  Jan.  11:  Washington.     Treaty.     Great  Britain/United  States. 

Art.  I:  Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation.     Charles,  UST,  39, 

47;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  102,  137;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  IV,  208; 

US.  FOR.  RELS,  1910,  pg.  533. 

JABON.    See  BELIZE. 

LAC  BOIS  BLANC.     See  BOUNDARY  WATERWAYS ;  Superior- 
Lake  of  the  Woods  System. 

LACHINE  CANAL.     See  CANALS. 

LA  CROIX  LAKE.     See  BOUNDARY  WATERWAYS ;  Superior- 
Lake  of  the  Woods  System. 


272  JSrOETH    AMERICA 

Lake  of  the  Woods 

LAKE  OF  THE  WOODS.     See  also  BOUNDARY  WATERWAYS. 

1782;  Nov.  30/Sept.  3,  1783:  Treaty.  Paris.  (See  Boundary  Water- 
ways.) 

1814;  Dec.  24:  Ghent.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States.  Art. 
7:  Demarcation  of  Water-Boundary.  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  II, 
384;  Malloy,  UST,  612-19. 

1818;  Oct  20:  London.  Convention.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Art.  II :  Establishment  &  Location  of  Boundary.  Hertslet,  COM. 
TR,  II,  392 ;  Malloy,  UST,  631-33. 

1842;  Aug.  9:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Art.  II:  Demarcation  of  Boundary;  Freedom  of  Navigating  on 
the  Lake  &  on  communicating  Boundary  Waterways.  Hertslet, 
COM.  TR.,  VI,  856;  Malloy,  UST,  650,  652.  (Commentary: 
MOORE,  ILD,  I,  677-78;  SNOW,  Am.  Dipl.,  82;  WEBSTER, 
Works,  VI,  351-52.) 

1908;  Apr.  11:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Treaty  No.  I :  Boundary  &  Navigation  Stipulations.  Treaty  No. 
II:  Fisheries  Regulations.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  101,  224;  Malloy, 
UST,  815;  827. 

1909;  Jan.  11:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Art.  I:  Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation.  Charles,  UST,  39, 
47;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  102,  137;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  IV,  208; 
US.  FOR.  RELS.,  1910,  pg.  533. 

(NOTE : 

(1914;  Jan.  14:  Decision.  International  Joint  Waterway  Commis- 
sion. Concerning  the  Application  of  the  Greater  Winnipeg 
Water  District  for  Approval  of  the  Diversion  of  Waters  from 
Lake  of  the  Woods  &  Shoal  Lake  for  Sanitary  &  Domestic  Pur- 
poses.    Washington,  Govt.  Print.  Office,  1914.) 

(NOTE : 

(1917;  June  13:  Final  Report.  International  Joint  Waterway  Com- 
mission. Respecting  Demarcation  of  Lake  of  the  Woods  Bound- 
ary. US.  OFFICIAL  BULLETIN,  June  13,  1917,  Washing- 
ton, G.  P.  O.) 

(Commentary: 

(International  Joint  Commission:  Report  concerning  Maintenance 
of  Levels  &  Utilization  of  Waters  of  Lake  of  the  Woods.  Wash- 
ington, G.  P.  O.,  1916/1917,  4  vols.) 

LEAN 

1880 ;  Nov.  1 :  Tegucigalpa.  Constitution.  Republic  of  Honduras. 
Chap.  IV,  Sec.  26 :  Freedom  of  Navigation  granted  to  All  Flags. 


NOETH    AMERICA  273 

Lean 

Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  17,  Y77. 
1904;  Sept.  2:  Tegucigalpa.     Constitution.     Republic  of  Honduras. 
Chap.  XVIII,  Art.  141:  Navigation  of  River  opened  freely  to 
the  Merchant  Vessels  of  All  Nations.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  97,  1255, 
1272. 

LITTLE  VERMILLION  LAKE.  See  BOUNDARY  WATER- 
WAYS; Superior-Lake  of  the  Woods  System. 

MEMPHREMAGOG  LAKE 

See  also :    BOUNDARY  WATERWAYS. 
1908;  Apr.  11:  Washington.     Treaty.     Great  Britain/United  States. 

Treaty  No.  II:  Protection  of  Fisheries.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  101, 

224;  Malloy,  UST,  827. 
1909;  Jan.  11:  Washington.     Treaty.     Great  Britain/United  States. 

Art.  I:  Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation.     Charles,  UST,  39, 

47;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  102,  137;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  IV,  208; 

US.  FOR.  REL,  1910,  pg.  533. 

MICHIGAN  LAKE 

For  Freedom  of  Navigation  on  Waterways  communicating 
with  the  Atlantic  Ocean, 

See  BOUNDARY  WATERWAYS;  CANALS;  ST.  LAWRENCE 
RIVER  SYSTEM. 

1854;  June  5:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Art.  IV:  British  Subjects  granted  Liberty  of  freely  navigating 
the  Lake,  as  long  as  American  Citizens  continued  to  enjoy  un- 
restricted navigation  of  the  St.  Lawrence.  Cussy/Martens,  Rec. 
Man.,  Ser.  I,  338-342;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  IX,  1001;  Malloy, 
UST,  668,  671. 


(NOTE : 

(This   Convention  was   terminated,   following   due  notice   from   the 
United  States;  March  17,  1866.) 


1871;  May  8:  Washington.     Treaty.     Great  Britain/United   States. 

Art.  28:  Granted  Privilege  of  Navigation  to  British  Merchant 

Vessels.     Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  XIII,  970,  982;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol. 

61,    pg.    52;    Malloy,    UST,    711.     (Commentary;    GUSHING, 

Treaty  of  Washington,  242.) 
1909;  Jan.  11:  Washington.     Treaty.     Great  Britain/United  States. 

Art.  I:  Expressly  providing  for  Freedom  of  Navigation  by  Brit- 


274  NORTH    AMEEICA 

Michigan  Lake 

ish  Vessels.     Charles,  UST,  39;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  102,  137;  Mar- 
tens, NRG,  Ser.  3,  IV,  208;  US.  FOR  RELS.,  1910,  pg.  533. 

MILK-ST.  MARY  River  System 

1909;  Jan.  11:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Art.  VI:  Constituting  Joint  Supervision  to  ensure  equal  appor- 
tionment of  the  Waters  for  Power  &  Irrigation.  Charles,  UST, 
39,  47;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  102,  137;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  IV, 
208;  US.  FOR.  RELS.,  1910,  pg.  533. 

MISSISSIPPI 

1762 ;  Nov.  3 :  Fontainebleau.  Convention.  France/Spain.  Cession 
of  Louisiana,  including  Island  of  New  Orleans,  by  France  to 
Spain;  Thalweg  Boundary.  Martens,  RPT,  I,  17.  (Comment- 
ary :  SNOW,  Am.  Dipl.,  pg.  3.) 

1763;  Feb.  10:  Paris.  Treaty.  France/Great  Britain/Spain.  Ces- 
sion to  Great  Britain  of  Territory  of  Louisiana  lying  East  of 
Mid-Channel  of  the  River,  except  Island  of  New  Orleans.  Art. 
7:  Mutual  Liberty  of  Navigation  from  Source  to  the  Sea;  Free- 
dom from  Detention,  Visitation,  or  Payment  of  Tolls  expressly 
Stipulated.  Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  I,  pt.  1,  386-88 ;  Cussy/Mar- 
tens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  I,  I,  29.  (Commentary :  ENGELHARD T, 
Hist,  du  Droit  Fluv.  Conv.,  45;  SCHUYLER,  Am.  Dipl.,  269; 
SNOW,  Am.  Dipl.,  4;  WHEATON,  Elem.  Int.  Law  (Lawr. 
Edit),  Chap.  IV,  sec.  18,  257;  WINSOR,  Mississippi  Basin, 
424.) 

1782 ;  Nov.  30 :  Paris.  Provisional  Treaty  of  Peace.  Great  Britain/ 
United  States.  Art.  II :  Thalweg  Boundary.  Art.  VIII :  Fluvial 
Navigation  from  Source  to  Sea  to  remain  forever  Free  &  Open 
to  the  Subjects  of  Great  Britain  &  to  the  Citizens  of  the  United 
States.  Malloy,  UST,  580,  583.  (Commentary:  MOORE,  ILD, 
V,  372.) 

1783;  Sept.  3:  Paris.  Definitive  Treaty  of  Peace.  Great  Britain/ 
United  States.  Art.  II:  Thalweg  Boundary.  Art.  VIII:  Re- 
newed Provisions  of  Art.  8  of  the  Treaty  of  Paris,  Nov.  30,  1782, 
ensuring  complete  Freedom  of  Navigation  for  both  Nations. 
Malloy,  UST,  586,  589.  (Commentary:  MOORE,  ILD,  I,  624; 
SNOW,  Am.  Dipl.  67,  106.) 

1783;  Sept.  3:  Paris  (Versailles).  Treaty.  Great  Britain/Spain. 
Retrocession  of  Territory  of  Louisiana,  East  of  the  River  (The 
Floridas),  to  Spain.     Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  II,  pt.  2,  491-95. 


NORTH    AMERICA  275 

Mississippi 


(NOTE: 

(SPAIN  PROHIBITS  NAVIGATION  ON  THE  LOWER  MISS- 
ISSIPPI following  Conclusion  of  Peace  between  Great  Britain 
&  the  United  States  by  Treaty  of  Paris,  Sept.  3,  1783.  ENGEL- 
HARDT,  Hist.  Droit  Fluv.  Conv.,  46;  HALL,  Int.  Law,  Sth 
Edit,  132;  SNOW,  Am.  DipL,  109;  TRESCOTT,  Dipl.  Hist.  .  . 
Admins,  of  Washington  &  Adams,  260.) 

(NOTE : 

(Resolution  adopted  by  the  Congress  of  the  Confederation,  Septem- 
ber 1788,  declaring :  "The  free  navigation  of  the  river  Mississippi 
is  a  clear  and  essential  right  of  the  United  States,  ...  to  be 
considered  and  supported  as  such."  SCHUYLER,  Am.  DipL, 
271.) 

(NOTE : 

(1790;  Aug.  2:  Instructions  to  Mr.  Carmichael  despatched  by  Mr. 
Jefferson,  Federal  Secretary  of  State;  urging  the  necessity  of 
establishing  freedom  of  navigation  by  the  Spanish  Government. 
Am.  State  Paps.,  For.  Rels.,  I,  247;  Barbe  Marbois,  Hist,  of 
Louisiana,  158;  Moore,  ILD,  I,  624.) 

(NOTE : 

(SPAIN  CLAIMS  EXCLUSIVE  ENJOYMENT  OF  NAVIGA- 
TION even  North  of  the  Thirty-first  Degree  of  Latitude.  Am. 
State  Paps.,  For.  Rels.,  I,  308.) 

1794;  Nov.  19:  London.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Art.  Ill:  Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation  Recognized,  Mal- 
loy,  UST,  590.  (Commentary :  Spain  protests  against  the  Third 
Article  of  Treaty  of  London,  Nov.  19,  1794.  SCHUYLER,  Am. 
Dipl.,  278;  SNOW,  Am.  Dipl.,  68-69,  73.) 

1795;  Oct.  27:  San  Lorenzo-el-Real.  Treaty.  Spain/United  States. 
Art.  IV :  Freedom  of  Navigation  from  Source  to  Gulf  of  Mexico 
reserved  exclusively  for  Spanish  subjects  &  Citizens  of  the 
United  States;  Liberty  of  extending  this  privilege  to  other 
Nations  reserved  by  Spain.  Art.  22 :  Right  of  Depositing  Mer- 
chandise at  New  Orleans  conceded  by  Spain.  Cussy/Hauterive, 
RTC,  II,  part  2,  343;  Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  I,  105; 
Malloy,  UST,  1640,  1642.  (Commentary:  H.  ADAMS,  Hist,  of 
U.  S.,  I,  348-49;  ENGELHARDT,  Hist.  Droit.  Fluv.  Conv.,  46; 
FOSTER,  Cent.  Am.  Dipl.,  188 ;  T.  J.  LAWRENCE,  Int.  Law, 
209;  MOORE,  Int.  Arbs.,  II,  998;  MOORE,  ILD,  I,  624; 
PHLLIMORE,  Int.  Law,  I,  241;  SCHUYLER,  Am.  Dipl.,  276- 


276  NOETH    AMERICA 

Mississippi 

77;  SNOW,  Am.  Dipl.,  106;  TWISS,  Law  of  Nations  (Peace), 
sec.  145.) 
1796;  May  4:  Philadelphia.  Agreement.  Great  Britain/United 
States.  Additional,  Explanatory  Article  supplementing  Article 
III  of  Treaty  of  London,  Nov.  19,  1794;  explicitly  providing 
that  no  subsequent  treaty  should  derogate  in  any  degree  from 
complete  liberty  of  navigation  on  all  boundary  waterways.  Mal- 
loy,  UST,  607-609.  (Commentary:  SCHUYLER,  Am.  Dipl., 
278.) 

(NOTE : 

(1797 ;  May  6 :  Protest  Presented  by  the  Spanish  Minister  to  the  Fed- 
eral Secretary  of  State;  denying  the  right  of  the  United  States 
to  grant  British  subjects  the  privilege  of  navigating  the  Missis- 
sippi.    Am.  State  Papers,  For.  Eels.,  II,  15.) 

(NOTE : 

(1797;  May  17:  Reply  of  Mr.  Timothy  Pickering  to  the  Spanish 
Minister  admitting  the  justice  of  the  Remonstrance;  provided 
the  right  of  the  United  States  to  participate  freely  in  the  naviga- 
tion of  the  Mississippi  originated  in  the  Treaty  of  San  Lorenzo- 
el-Real;  Oct.  27,  1795.     Am.  State  Papers,  For.  Relats,  II,  16.) 

1800;  Oct.  1:  San  Ildefonso.  Treaty.  France/Spain.  Art.  Ill: 
Retrocession  of  Louisiana  to  France;  Mid-Channel  constituting 
Boundary.  Clercq,  RTF,  I,  411-12.  (Commentary:  MOORE, 
Am.  Dipl.  226;  SNOW,  Am.  DipL,  46.) 

1803;  Apr.  30:  Paris.  Treaty.  France/United  States.  Art.  I:  Ces- 
sion of  Louisiana  by  France.  Art.  Ill:  Demarcation  of  Bound- 
aries.   Malloy,  UST,  508-11. 

1814;  Dec.  24:  Ghent.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States.  For- 
mal Recognition  of  the  Lapse  of  Navigation  Privileges  formerly 
accorded  British  Subjects;  the  United  States  refusing  to  renew 
the  Stipulations  governing  Freedom  of  Navigation  embodied  in 
Treaty  of  London,  Nov.  19,  1794,  unless  proof  submitted  that  a 
navigable  portion  of  the  system  lay  within  Canadian  Dominion. 
Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  II,  382-84.  (Commentary:  H.  ADAMS, 
Hist,  of  the  U.  S.,  IX,  44;  LAWRENCE,  Int.  Law,  230,  569; 
SCHUYLER,  Am.  Dipl.,  281;  SNOW,  Am.  Dipl.,  74.) 

1819;  Feb.  22:  Washington.  Treaty.  Spain/United  States.  Art. 
II:  Cession  of  The  Floridas  to  the  United  States;  Mississippi 
thus  becoming  a  National  Waterway.  Art.  12:  Annulling  Ar- 
ticles 2,  3,  4,  21,  &  the  second  section  of  Art.  22  of  the  Treaty 
of  San  Lorenzo-el-Real;  Oct.  27,  1795.     Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC, 


NOETH    AMERICA  277 

Mississippi 

II,  part  2,  361 ;  Malloy,  UST,  1651-57.     (Commentary :  MOOKE, 
Int.  Arbs.,  4796,  4800-01;  MOOEE,  ILD,  I,  624-25.) 

MOBILE 


(NOTE: 

(1805;  Dec.  3:  Washington.  Fifth  Annual  Message.  Thomas  Jef- 
ferson, President  of  the  United  States,  declared :  "On  the  Mobile, 
our  commerce  passing  through  that  river  continues  to  be  ob- 
structed by  arbitrary  duties  and  vexatious  searches."  This  con- 
troversy with  Spain  ceased  upon  the  conclusion  of  the  Treaty 
of  Washington,  Feb.  22,  1819,  (Art.  II.),  by  acquisition  of  en- 
tire navigable  course.) 

MURRAY  CANAL.     See  CANALS. 

NAMECAN  LAKE.  See  BOUNDARY  WATERWAYS ;  Superior- 
Lake  of  the  Woods  System. 

NEGRO;  or  TINTO 

1880;   Nov.   1:   Tegucigalpa.     Constitution.     Republic  of  Honduras. 

Chap.  IV,  Sec.  26 :  Freedom  of  Navigation  granted  to  All  Flags. 

Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  17,  777. 
1904;  Sept,  2:  Tegucigalpa.     Constitution.     Republic  of  Honduras. 

Chap.  XVIII,  Art.  141:  Navigation  of  River  opened  freely  to 

the  Merchant  Vessels  of  All  Nations.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  97,  1255, 

1272. 

NIAGARA  See  also :    BOUNDARY  WATERWAYS ; 

GREAT  LAKES  &  CONNECTING  WATERS. 

1814;  Dec.  24:  Ghent.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States.  De- 
marcation of  International  Boundary.  Hertslet,  COM.  TR., 
II,  383 ;  Malloy,  UST,  612-19. 

1822 ;  June  18 :  Utica.  Agreement.  Commissioners  of  Great  Britain 
&  the  United  States.  Concerning  the  Demarcation  of  the  Water- 
Boundary  in  conformity  with  Art.  VI  of  Treaty  of  Ghent; 
Dec.  24,  1814.  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  IV,  493 ;  Malloy,  UST,  620- 
23. 

1906;  June  29:  Washington.  Law.  United  States.  Act  of  Con- 
gress; controlling  and  regulating  the  utilization  of  the  waters 
of  Niagara  River,  for  the  purpose  of  preserving  Niagara  Falls, 
&c.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  101,  635. 

1908;  Apr.  11:  Washington.     Treaty.     Great  Britain/United  States. 


2Y8  ISrOETH    AMERICA 

Niagara 

Treaty  No.  II :  Kegulations  for  Protection  of  the  Fisheries.  GB. 
BFSP,  Vol.  101,  224;  Malloy,  UST,  827. 
1909;  Jan.  11:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Art.  I:  Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation.  Charles,  UST,  39; 
GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  102,  137;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  IV,  208;  US. 
FOR.  RELS.,  1910,  pg.  533. 

NICARAGUA  LAKE 

1858 ;  Apr.  15  :  Treaty.  Costa  Rica  &  Nicaragua.  Art.  2 :  Demarca- 
tion of  Water-Boundary.  Art.  9 :  Neutralization  of  the  Lake 
in  event  of  War.     MOORE,  Int.  Arbs.,  4706-08. 

1886;  Dec.  24:  Guatemala.  Treaty.  Costa  Rica  &  Nicaragua.  Sub- 
mitting the  Controversy  concerning  the  Validity  of  the  Treaty 
of  Apr.  15,  1858,  to  the  Arbitration  of  the  United  States. 
MOORE,  Int.  Arbs.,  4704. 

1888 ;  March  22 :  Washington.  Award  by  President  Cleveland. 
Composing  the  Boundary  Dispute  between  Costa  Rica  & 
Nicaragua.  MOORE,  Int.  Arbs.,  1945,  1964;  MOORE,  ILD, 
III,  259.  (Commentary:  Correspondence  relating  to  the  Bound- 
ary Dispute  between  Costa  Rica  &  Nicaragua:  U.  S.  FOR. 
RELATS.,  1893,  202,  216,  266,  270,  281,  286-87,  289,  294;  1894, 
180,  192-93.) 

1896;  Mar.  27:  Treaty.  Costa  Rica  &  Nicaragua.  Embodying  the 
Award  of  President  Cleveland  concerning  the  Boundary  Dispute; 
involving  the  Validity  of  the  Treaty  of  April  15,  1858.  U.  S., 
FOR.  RELATS.,  1896,  100-102. 

(NOTE:  -^—— 

(For  the  Award  of  General  Alexander,  appointed  Engineer-Umpire 
by  President  Cleveland,  in  conformity  with  terms  of  the  Treaty 
of  March  27,  1896,  see:  US.  FOR.  RELATS.,  1897,  113-16;  111, 
330,  419^21.) 

ONTARIO  LAKE  See  also :     BOUNDARY  WATERWAYS ; 

GREAT  LAI^ES  &  CONNECTING  WATERS. 

1782;  Nov.  30; 

1783;  Sept.  4:  Paris.     Treaty.     (See  Boundary  Waterways.) 

1814;  Dec.  24:  Ghent.     Treaty.     Great  Britain/United  States.     Art. 

VI:   Demarcation   of  International  Boundary.     Hertslet,   COM. 

TR.,  II,  383 ;  Malloy,  UST,  612-19. 
1817;   Apr.   28/29:  Washington.     Agreement.     Great  Britain   &   the 

United  States.     Limiting  Naval  Forces  on  the  Lake.     Hertslet, 

COM.  TR.,  IX,  763;  Malloy,  UST,  628-29. 


NORTH    AMEEICA  279 

Ontario  Lake 

1818;  Apr.  28:  Washington.  Law  (Presidential  Proclamation). 
United  States.  Giving  efifect  to  the  Naval  Agreement  of  Wash- 
ington; Apr.  28/29,  1817.  Am.  State  Paps.,  For.  Eels  IV  202- 
GB.  BFSP,  V,  1200;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  IX,  762;  Malloy, 
UST,  630;  Richardson,  Messages  &  Papers,  II,  36. 

1822 ;  June  18 :  Utica.  Agreement.  Commissioners  of  Great  Britain 
&  the  United  States.  Concerning  the  Demarcation  of  the  Water- 
Boundary  in  conformity  with  Art.  VI  of  Treaty  of  Ghent;  Dec. 
24,  1814.     Hertslet,  COM.  TR,  IV,  493;  Malloy,  620-23. 

1908;  Apr.  11:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Treaty  No.  II:  Protection  of  Fisheries.  GB.  BFSP  Vol  101 
224;  Malloy,  UST,  827. 

1909;  Jan.  11:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Art.  I:  Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation.  Charles,  UST  39- 
GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  102,  137;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  IV,  208-'us' 
FOR.  RELS.,  1910,  pg.  533. 

OSWEGO  CANAL.     See  CANALS. 

OTTAWA  CANAL     See  CANALS. 

PATUCA 

1880;  Nov.  1:  Tegucigalpa.  Constitution.  Republic  of  Honduras. 
Chap.  IV,  Sec.  26 :  Freedom  of  Navigation  granted  to  All  Flags. 
Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  17,  777. 

1904;  Sept.  2:  Tegucigalpa.  Constitution.  Republic  of  Honduras. 
Chap.  XVIII,  Art.  141:  Navigation  of  the  River  opened  freely 
to  the  Merchant  Vessels  of  All  Nations.  GB  BFSP  Vol  97 
1255,  1272.  '         •       » 

PIGEON.  See  BOUNDARY  WATERWAYS;  Superior-Lake  of 
the  Woods  System. 

PORCUPINE 

1871;  May  8:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Art.  26:  "The  Navigation  .  .  .  ascending  and  descending,  from, 
to,  and  into  the  sea,  shall  forever  remain  free  and  open  for  the 
purposes  of  commerce  to  the  subjects  of  Her  Britannic  Majesty 
and  to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States."  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  61, 
51;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  XIII,  970,  981;  Malloy,  UST,'700,  VlL 
(Commentary:  MOORE,  Am.  Dipl.,  83;  MOORE,  ILD  l'635- 
US.  FOR  RELS.,  1892,  335,  337;  WESTLAKE,  Int. ' Law  l' 
158.)  '     ' 


280  NOETH    AMEBIC  A 

Porcupine 

1898 ;  Feb.  2 :  Washington.  Law.  United  States.  Navigation  Eegu- 
lations.     U.  S.,  Treasury  Dept.  Circular,  No.  24. 

1898 ;  June  6 :  Washington.  Law.  United  States.  Navigation 
Kegulations.     U.  S.,  Treasury  Dept.  Circular,  No.  98. 

EAINY  LAKE.     See  also  BOUNDAEY  WATERWAYS. 

EAINY  EIVEE 

1782;  Nov  30/Sept.  3,  1783:  Paris.  Treaty.  (See  Boundary  Water- 
ways.) 

1814;  Dec.  24:  Ghent.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Demarcation  of  Water-Boundary.  Hertslet,  COM.  TE.,  II,  383; 
Malloy,  UST,  612-19. 

1842;  Aug.  9:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Art.  II:  Demarcation  of  Boundary;  Freedom  of  Navigation  on 
the  Lake,  Eiver,  and  Communicating  Frontier  Waterways. 
Hertslet,  COM.  TE.,  VI,  856;  Malloy,  UST,  650,  652.  (Com- 
mentary: MOOEE,  Int.  Arbs.,  193;  MOOEE,  ILD,  I,  677-78.) 

1908;  Apr.  11:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Treaty  No.  I :  Boundary  &  Navigation  Stipulations.  Treaty  No. 
II:  Fisheries  Eegulations.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  101,  224;  Malloy, 
UST,  815;  827. 

1909;  Jan.  11:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Art.  I:  Eeciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation.  Charles,  UST,  39; 
GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  102,  137 ;  Martens,  NEG,  Ser.  3,  IV,  208 ;  US. 
FOE.  EELS.,  1910,  pg.  533.  (Commentary:  U.  S.  GEANT,  The 
International  Boundary  between  Lake  Superior  &  the  Lake  of 
the  Woods;  in  Minnesota  Hist.  Soc.  Collects.,  VIII,  pg.  1.) 

EAPIDE  PLAT  CANAL.     See  CANALS. 

EED  EIVEE  OF  THE  NOETH 

1879;  July  30/ Aug.  12:  Washington.  Agreement.  Great  Britain/ 
United  States.  (1)  Mr.  Evarts,  Secretary  of  State,  to  Sir  E. 
Thornton,  concerning  certain  restrictions  imposed  on  American 
Vessels  navigating  the  Eiver  within  the  Dominion  of  Canada; 
Washington,  July  30,  1879.  (2)  Eeply  of  Sir  E.  Thornton, 
Aug.  12,  1879,  assuring  Freedom  of  Navigation  for  Vessels  of 
the  United  States.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  70,  1197-98. 

EED  EIVEE;  or  EIO  EOXO  DE  NACOGDOCHES 
1819;    Feb.    22:    Washington.     Treaty.     Spain/United    States.     Art. 
3:  Eeciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation;  Common  Enjoyment  of 


NORTH   AMEHICA  281 

Red  River 

Ancillary  Uses  where  forming  International  Frontier,  Malloy, 
UST,  1651,  1653. 

(NOTE: 

Annulled  by  Annexation  of  Texas  by  the  United  States.  New 
Boundaries  established  by  Treaty  between  Mexico  &  the  United 
States;  Guadalupe  Hidalgo,  Feb.  2,  1848.     Malloy,  UST,  1107.) 

KIDEAU  CANAL.     See  CANALS. 

RIO  GRANDE ;  or  RIO  GRANDE  DEL  NORTE ;  or  RIO  BRAVO 

1848;  Feb.  2:  Guadalupe  Hidalgo.  Treaty.  Mexico/United  States. 
Art.  V:  Delimination  of  International  Boundary.  Art.  VII: 
Mutual  Liberty  of  Navigation.  Malloy,  UST,  1107-1111. 
(Commentary:  ENGELHARDT,  Hist.  Droit  Fluv.  Conv.,  83; 
MOORE,  ILD,  I,  639;  SNOW,  Am.  Dipl.) 

1853;  Dec.  30:  Washington.  Treaty.  Mexico/United  States.  Art. 
IV:  Restricted  Scope  of  Art.  7  of  Treaty  of  Guadalupe  Hidalgo, 
Feb.  2,  1848,  by  limiting  Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation  to 
the  Course  lying  south  of  Latitude  31  deg.,  47  min.,  30  sec. 
Malloy,  UST,  1123. 

1884;  Nov  12:  Washington.  Treaty.  Mexico/United  States.  De- 
marcation of  Boundary  Line.  Malloy,  UST,  1159;  Martens, 
NRG,  Ser.  2,  XIII,  673-75. 

1889;  March  1:  Washington.  Treaty.  Mexico/United  States.  Art. 
I :  Fluvial  Boundary  Disputes  to  be  referred  to  an  International 
Boundary  Commission.  Arts.  II  &  III:  Institution  of  the  In- 
ternational Boundary  Commission.  Art.  V :  Prohibition  of 
Works  or  Obstructions  deemed  in  contravention  of  the  stipula- 
tions of  the  Treaties  of  Feb.  2,  1848  &  Nov.  12,  1884.  Malloy, 
UST;  1167-69. 

1895 ;  Oct.  1 :  Washington.  Convention.  Mexico/United  States. 
Agreement  prolonging  the  stipulations  of  the  Treaty  of  March 
1,  1889.    Malloy,  UST,  1175-76. 

1896;  Nov.  6:  Washington.  Convention.  Mexico/United  States. 
Prolonging  Operation  of  Treaty  of  Washington,  March  1,  1889, 
concerning  Water-Boundary.     Malloy,  UST,  1179. 

1897;  Oct.  29:  Washington.  Convention.  Mexico/United  States. 
Extending  the  Duration  of  the  Treaty  of  Washington,  March  1, 
1889,  for  a  period  of  one  year.     Malloy,  UST,  1181. 

1898 ;  Dec.  2 :  Washington.  Convention.  Mexico/United  States. 
Continuing  the  Stipulations  of  the  Treaty  of  Washington,  March 
1,  1889,  in  force  an  additional  year.     Malloy,  UST,  1182. 


282  NOBTH    AMERICA 

Rio  Grande 

1899 ;  Dec.  22 :  Washington.  Convention.  Mexico/United  States. 
Renewing  Operation  of  Treaty  of  Washington,  March  1,  1889, 
for  the  Ensuing  Year.     Malloy,  UST,  1191. 

1900;  Nov.  21:  Washington.  Convention.  Mexico/United  States. 
Water-Boundary.     Malloy,  UST,  1192-93. 

1905;  Mar.  20:  Washington,  Convention.  Mexico/United  States. 
Arts.  I-IV:  Elimination  of  Obstructions  in  the  Navigable 
Channel.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  98,  753;  Malloy,  UST,  1199;  Mar- 
tens, NRG,  Ser.  3,  I,  299. 

1906;  May  21:  Washington.  Convention.  Mexico/United  States, 
Arts.  1-6 :  Diversion  &  Equitable  Distribution  of  the  Waters 
of  the  Rio  Grande.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  101,  469;  Malloy,  UST, 
1202-1203 ;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  2,  Vol.  35,  461. 

1910;  Jan  24:  Washington.  Treaty,  Mexico/United  States.  Pro- 
viding for  the  Arbitration  of  the  Boundary  Dispute  arising  from 
Divergent  Interpretation  of  the  Treaties  of  Feb.  2,  1848  &  Dec, 
30,  1853,  concerning  Subsequent  Changes  in  the  Navigable  Chan- 
nel.    Charles,  UST,  91. 

1911 ;  June  15 :  Arbitral  Sentence  rendered  by  the  Commission  es- 
tablished in  conformity  with  the  Arbitration  Treaty ;  Washington, 
Jan.  24,  1910,     Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  VI,  66. 

ROMAN.    SeeAGUAN 

SABINE 

1819;  Feb.  22:  Washington.  Treaty.  Spain/United  States.  Art. 
3 :  Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation ;  Common  Enjoyment  of 
Ancillary  Uses  from  the  Sea  throughout  Course  forming  Inter- 
national Frontier.  Malloy,  UST,  1651,  1653.  (NOTE:  An- 
nulled by  Annexation  of  Texas  by  the  United  States.  New 
Boundaries  established  by  Treaty  between  Mexico  &  the  United 
States;  Guadalupe  Hidalgo,  Feb.  2,  1848.     Malloy,  UST,  1107.) 

ST.  ANDREW'S  CANAL.     See  CANALS. 

ST,  CLAIR  FLATS  CANAL.     See  CANALS ;  GREAT  LAKES  & 

CONNECTING  WATERS. 

ST.  CLAIR  LAKE  See  also:    BOUNDARY  WATERWAYS; 

GREAT  LAKES  &  CONNECTING  WATERS. 
ST,  CLAIR  RIVER 

1782;  Nov.  30:  Paris,     Provisional  Treaty. 

1783;  Sept.  3:  Paris.     Definitive  Treaty  of  Peace.     Great  Britain/ 


NORTH   AMERICA  283 

St.  Clair  Lake 

United  States.  Art.  II:  Demarcation  of  International  Bound- 
ary.    Malloy,  UST,  580-81;  586-88. 

1814;  Dec.  24:  Ghent.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States.  Art. 
VI :  Demarcation  of  Boundary.  Hertslet,  \J0M.  TR.,  383 ;  Mal- 
loy, UST,  612,  616. 

1822 ;  June  18 :  Utica.  Agreement.  Commissioners  of  Great  Britain 
&  the  United  States.  Establishing  precise  location  of  the  Inter- 
national Boundary  in  the  Lake  &  River,  in  conformity  with  Art. 
VI  of  the  Treaty  of  Ghent,  Dec.  24,  1824.  Hertslet,  COM.  TR., 
IV,  493,  497;  Malloy,  UST,  620-23. 

1842;  Aug.  9:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Arts.  1,  2,  3,  6,  7 :  Demarcation  of  Boundary ;  Freedom  of  Navi- 
gation. GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  51,  934-37;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  VI, 
856 ;  Malloy,  UST,  650,  653. 

1854 ;  June  5 :  Washington,  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Art.  IV:  Recognized  Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation. 
Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  1,  Vol.  VII,  338-342;  Hertslet, 
COM.  TR.,  IX,  1001 ;  Malloy,  UST,  668,  671. 

1871;  May  8:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Art.  27:  Open  freely  to  the  Navigation  of  the  Vessels  of  Both 
Nations.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  61,  pg.  52;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol. 
13,  970,  982 ;  Malloy,  UST,  711. 

1908;  Apr.  11:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Treaty  No.  I:  Boundary  &  Navigation  Stipulations.  Treaty 
No.  II:  Fisheries  Regulations;  Art.  IV,  sec.  9  specifically  in- 
cluding St.  Clair  Lake  &  River.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  101,  224;  Mal- 
loy, UST,  815,  827. 

1909;  Jan.  11:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Art.  I:  Perpetual  Freedom  of  Navigation  assured  to  Vessels  of 
Both  Nations.  Charles,  UST,  39;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  102,  137; 
Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  IV,  208 ;  US.  FOR.  RELS.,  1910,  533. 

ST.  CROIX.     See  also  BOUNDARY  WATERWAYS. 

1782;  Nov.  30:  Paris.     Provisional  Treaty. 

1783;  Sept.  3:  Paris.  Definitive  Treaty  of  Peace.  Great  Britain/ 
United  States.  Art.  II:  Demarcation  of  International  Bound- 
ary.    Malloy,  UST,  580-81;  586-88. 

1794;  Nov.  19:  London.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Arts.  II,  V:     Boundary.     Malloy,  UST,  590. 

1798;  Oct.  25:  Agreement.  Commissioners  of  Great  Britain  &  the 
United  States.  Declaring,  in  conformity  with  Art.  V  of  Treaty 
of  London,  Nov.  19,  1794,  what  River  was  intended  as  the  "  St. 


284  ISrORTH    AMERICA 

St.  Croix 

Croix  "  by  the  Definitive  Treaty  of  Paris,  Sept.  3,  1783.     Hertslet, 

COM.  TR,  IX,  761. 
1814;  Dec.  24:  Ghent.     Treaty.     Great  Britain/United  States.     Art. 

V:     Demarcation   of  International  Boundary.     Hertslet,   COM. 

TR.,    II,    378,    382-83;    Malloy,    UST,    612-19.     (Commentary: 

SNOW,  Am.  Dipl.,  68,  69,  73.) 
1842;  Aug.  9:  Washington.     Treaty.     Great  Britain/United  States. 

Arts.   1,   6:     Demarcation  of  Boundary.     GB.   BFSP,   Vol.   51, 

934-37;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  VI,  854,  856,  858;  Malloy,  UST, 

650,  653. 
1847;    June   28:    Washington.     Decision.     Commissioners    of    Great 

Britain  &  the  United  States  appointed  by  terms  of  Treaty  of 

Washington,  Aug.  9,  1842.     Establishing  International  Boundary 

in  the  St.  Croix.     Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  14,  669. 
1908;  Apr.  11:  Washington.     Treaty.     Great  Britain/United  States. 

Treaty  No.  I,  Art.  II:     Demarcation  of  Boundary.     Treaty  No. 

II:     Protection  of  Fluvial  Fisheries.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  101,  224; 

Malloy,  UST,  815,  827. 
1909;  Jan.  11:  Washington.     Treaty.     Great  Britain/United  States. 

Art.  I:     Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation.     Charles,  UST,  39; 

GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  102,  137;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  IV,  208;  US. 

FOR.  RELS.,  1910,  533. 

ST.  FRANCIS.  See  also  BOUNDARY  WATERWAYS;  St.  John 
River  System. 

1842;  Aug.  9:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Art.  I:  Thalweg  Boundary.  Art.  VI:  Demarcation  of  Inter- 
national Boundary.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  51,  934-37 ;  Hertslet,  COM. 
TR.,  VI,  854;  Malloy,  UST,  650,  653. 

1847;  June  28:  Washington.  Decision.  Commissioners  of  Great 
Britain  &  the  United  States  appointed  in  conformity  with  Treaty 
of  Washington,  Aug.  9,  1842.  Designating  International  Fluvial 
Boundary.     Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  14,  669. 

1909;  Jan.  11:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Art.  I:  Perpetual  Freedom  of  Navigation  assured  to  Vessels  of 
Both  Nations.  Charles,  UST,  39;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  102,  137; 
Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  IV,  208 ;  US.  FOR.  RELS.,  1910,  533. 

ST.  JOHN.     See  also  BOUNDARY  WATERWAYS. 

1782;  Nov.  30:  Paris.     Provisional  Treaty. 

1783;  Sept.  3:  Paris.  Definitive  Treaty  of  Peace.  Great  Britain/ 
United  States.  Demarcation  of  International  Boundary.  Mal- 
loy, UST,  580-81;  586-88. 


NOETH    AMERICA  285 

St.  John 

1814;  Dec.  24:  Ghent.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States.  Art. 
V:  Demarcation  of  Boundary  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  River 
St.  Lawrence.  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  II,  378,  382-83;  Malloy, 
UST,  612-19. 

1831;  Jan.  10:  The  Hague.  Arbitral  Award.  King  of  the  Nether- 
lands. Composing  the  Dispute  between  Great  Britain  &  the 
United  States  concerning  the  location  of  the  Boundary  stipulated 
by  Art.  V  of  Treaty  of  Ghent,  Dec.  24,  1814.  Hertslet,  COM. 
TE.,  IV,  521. 

1842;  Aug.  9:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Art.  I:  Thalweg  Boundary.  Art.  Ill:  Reciprocal  Freedom  of 
Navigation.  Art.  VI :  Demarcation  of  International  Boundary. 
GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  51,  934^37;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  VI,  854-56; 
Malloy,  UST,  650^51,  653.  (Commentary :  MOORE,  Int.  Arbs., 
151;  MOORE,  ILD,  I,  636;  WEBSTER,  ''Writings,"  XII,  23; 
U.  S.,  24th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Sen.  Doc.  No.  414,  pg.  62.) 

1843 ;  Aug.  22 :  London.  Law.  Act  of  Parliament  of  Great  Britain. 
Establishing  Freedom  of  Fluvial  Transit  for  American  Vessels 
&  Commerce  in  conformity  with  Treaty  of  Washington,  Aug.  9, 
1842.     Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  VI,  865;  6  &  7  Vict.,  cap.  84. 

1847 ;  June  28 :  Washington.  Decision.  Commissioners  of  Great 
Britain  &  the  United  States  appointed  by  terms  of  Treaty  of 
Washington,  Aug.  9,  1842.  Designating  International  Fluvial 
Boundary.     Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  14,  669. 

1853 ;  Aug.  20 :  London.  Law.  Act  of  Parliament  of  Great  Britain. 
Fulfilling  Stipulations  of  Treaty  of  Washington,  Aug.  9,  1842. 
Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  IX,  444. 

1854;  June  5:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Art.  IV,  par.  4:  Established  Privilege  of  Plottage  of  Produce 
upon  St.  John  &  Affluents  subject  to  no  Duties  or  Tolls.  Cussy/ 
Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  I,  VII,  338-342;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR., 
IX,  1001 ;  Malloy,  UST,  668,  671. 

1871;  May  8:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Arts.  27,  28:  Freedom  of  Navigation.  Art.  31:  Exemption 
from  Canadian  Export  Duties  for  Produce  transported  by  the 
River  St.  John.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  61,  52;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR., 
XIII,  970,  981;  Malloy,  UST,  700-11,  713.  (Commentary: 
GUSHING,  Treaty  of  Washington,  1871,  pg.  243;  MOORE,  Int. 
Arb.,  4751;  MOORE,  ILD,  I,  637.) 

1908;  Apr.  11:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Treaty  No.  II ;  Protection  of  Fluvial  Fisheries.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol. 
101,  224;  Malloy,  UST,  815,  827. 


286  NORTH    AMERICA 

St.  John 

1909;  Jan.  11:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Art.  I:  Perpetual  Freedom  of  Navigation  assured  to  Vessels 
of  Both  Nations.  Charles,  UST,  39;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  102,  137; 
Martens,  NRG,  SEE.  3,  IV,  208;  US.  FOR.  RELS,  1910,  pg.  533. 

ST.  LAWRENCE  See  also:     BOUNDARY  WATERWAYS; 

CANALS. 

1782 ;  Nov.  30 :  Paris.     Provisional  Treaty. 

1783;  Sept.  3:  Paris.  Definitive  Treaty  of  Peace.  Great  Britain/ 
United  States.  Art.  II:  Demarcation  of  International  Bound- 
ary.    Malloy,  UST,  580-81;  586-88. 

1814;  Dec.  24:  Ghent.  Great  Britain/United  States.  Arts.  V,  VI: 
International  Fluvial  Boundary.  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  II,  378, 
382-83 ;  Malloy,  UST,  612-19. 

1822 ;  June  18 :  Utica.  Agreement.  Commissioners  of  Great  Britain 
&  the  United  States.  Establishing  Precise  Location  of  Interna- 
tional Fluvial  Boundary  in  conformity  with  Art.  VI  of  Treaty 
of  Ghent,  Dec.  24,  1814.  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  IV,  493,  497; 
Malloy,  UST,  620-23. 

1831;  Jan.  10:  The  Hague.  Arbitral  Award.  King  of  the  Nether- 
lands. Deciding  the  Dispute  between  Great  Britain  &  the  United 
States  concerning  Location  of  Water-Boundary  stipulated  by  Art. 
V  of  Treaty  of  Ghent,  Dec.  24,  1814.  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  IV, 
521. 

1842;  Aug.  9:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Arts.  I,  VI:  Demarcation  of  International  Boundary.  Art. 
VII:  All  Channels  available  for  Navigation  of  Both  Nations, 
irrespective  of  Precise  Location  of  Boundary.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol. 
51,  934-37;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  854-56;  Malloy,  650-51,  653, 
654-55.  (Commentary:  WHEATON,  Elem.  Int.  Law  (Lawr. 
Edit),  Chap.  IV,  sec.  19,  pg.  261.) 

1854;  June  5:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Art.  IV:  Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation,  subject  to  subse- 
quent termination  of  the  privilege  upon  due  notification.  Cussy/ 
Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  I,  VII,  338-342;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR., 
IX,  1001;  Malloy,  UST,  668,  671.  (Commentary:  ENGEL- 
HARDT,  Hist.  Droit  Fluv.  Conv.,  82 ;  LAWRENCE,  Int.  Law, 
209;  MOORE,  Int.  Arb.,  4747;  MOORE,  ILD,  I,  633-34;  678; 
PHILLIMORE,  Int.  Law,  3rd  Edit.,  I,  643-645;  WESTLAKE, 
Int.  Law,  I,  155;  WHEATON,  Elem.  Int.  Law  (Dana  Edit), 
283-287,  Note  287-288.) 


ZSrOETH    AME^RICA  287 

St.  Lawrence 


(NOTE: 

(PRELIMINARIES  UNDERTAKEN  BY  THE  UNITED  STATES 

EOR   INSTITUTING   FREEDOM   OF   NAVIGATION    ON 

THE  RIVER  ST.  LAWRENCE ;  1823-1854 : 
AM.  STATE  PAPS.,  For.  Rels.,  VI,  757-58,  769,  772 ; 
BUCHANAN,  "  Writings,"  collected  by  J.  B.  MOORE,  Washington, 

Apr.  12,  1848,  VIII,  49 ;  Washington,  May  1,  1848,  VIII,  56 ; 
GALLATIN,  "Writings,"  collected  by  H.  ADAMS,  II,  315; 
GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  19,  1067;  Correspondence  between  Great  Britain  & 

the  United  States,  1824-1827,  concerning  institution  of  Freedom 

of  Navigation; 
HALL,  Int.  Law,  5th  Edit.,  133-138 ; 
MADISON,  "Writings,"  collected  by  G.  HUNT,  Montpelier,  Nov. 

13,  1823,  Vol.  9,  164; 
SCHUYLER,  Am.  Dipl.,  283-84,  287-88 ; 
US.  CONGRESSIONAL  GLOBE,  1849-50,  31  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  May 

2,  1850,  pg.  893-94;  31  Cong.,  2nd  Sess.,  pg.  751; 
US.  31  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  House  Jol.,  450;  House  Misc.  Doc,  No.  22, 

29 ;  House  Report,  No.  295 ; 
US.  31  Cong.,  2nd  Sess.,  House  Report,  No.  4,  72.) 

1866;  Mar.  17:  Treaty  of  Washington,  June  5,  1854,  was  terminated 
upon  this  date  following  appropriate  notice  given  by  the  United 
States;  Privilege  of  Navigation  for  American  Vessels  conse- 
quently extinguished.  Moore,  ILD,  I,  634;  Schuyler,  Am.  Dipl., 
290.  (Commentary:  President  Grant's  Annual  Message  of  1870, 
Richardson,  VII,  104.) 

1871;  May  8:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Arts.  26,  27:  Perpetual  Freedom  of  Navigation  for  American 
Vessels  throughout  Lower  Course.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  61,  52 ;  Hert- 
slet,  COM.  TR.,  XIII,  970,  981;  Malloy,  UST,  700-11.  (Com- 
mentary :  GUSHING,  The  Treaty  of  Washington  of  1871,  pgs. 
203-221,  241-247;  MOORE,  Int.  Arbs.,  170,  195,  816,  4057,  4751; 
MOORE,  ILD,  I,  635 ;  V,  723 ;  SNOW,  Am.  Dipl.,  95-99 ;  WEST- 
LAKE,  Int.  Law,  I,  158.) 

1902 ;  June  18 :  Washington.  Law.  Act  of  Congress  of  the  United 
States.  Permitting  Construction  of  Dam  by  the  Canadian  Gov- 
ernment at  Les  Galops  Island  for  Improvement  of  Navigation. 
GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  96,  180. 

1908;  Apr.  11:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Treaty  No.   I:    Boundary  &   Navigation  Regulations.     Treaty 


288  NOETH    AMERICA 

St.  Lawrence 

No.  II :  Protection  of  Fluvial  Fisheries.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  101, 
224;  Malloy,  UST,  815,  827. 
1909;  Jan.  11:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Art.  I:  Perpetual  Freedom  of  Navigation  for  Vessels  of  Both 
Nations.  Charles,  UST,  39;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  102,  137;  Martens, 
NEG,  Ser.  3,  IV,  208;  US.  FOR.  EELS.,  1910,  pg.  533. 


ST.  MAEY'S;  or  Sault  Sainte  Marie  CANAL.     See  CANALS. 

ST.  MAEY'S  LAKE        See  also :    BOUND AEY  WATEEWAYS ; 
GEEAT  LAKES  &  CONNECTING  WATEES. 
ST.  MAEY'S  EIVEE 

1782 ;  Nov.  30 :  Paris.     Provisional  Treaty. 

1783;  Sept.  3:  Paris.  Definitive  Treaty  of  Peace.  Great  Britain/ 
United  States.  Art.  II:  Delimination  of  International  Bound- 
ary.    Malloy,  UST,  580-81 ;  586-88. 

1814;  Dec.  24:  Ghent.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States.  Art. 
VII :  International  Fluvial  Boundary.  Hertslet,  COM.  TE.,  II, 
378,  383 ;  Malloy,  UST,  612-19. 

1842;  Aug.  9:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Art.  II:  Thalweg  Boundary.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  51,  934;  Hert- 
slet, COM.  TE.,  VI,  854-56;  Malloy,  UST,  650,  653. 

1908 ;  Apr.  11 :  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Treaty  No.  I :  Boundary  &  Navigation  Eegulations.  Treaty  No. 
II:  Protection  of  Fisheries.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  101,  224;  Mal- 
loy, UST,  815,  827. 

1909;  Jan.  11:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Art.  I:  Perpetual  Freedom  of  Navigation  for  Vessels  of  Both 
Nations.  Charles,  UST,  39;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  102,  137;  Martens, 
NEG,  Ser.  3,  IV,  208;  US.  FOE.  EELS.,  1910,  pg.  533. 

ST.  MAEY'S 

1782 ;  Nov.  30 :  Paris.     Provisional  Treaty. 

1783;  Sept.  3:  Paris.     Definitive  Treaty  of  Peace.     Great  Britain/ 

United    States.     Art.    II:     Thalweg    Boundary.     Malloy,    UST, 

580-81;  586-88. 
1795;  Oct.  27:  San  Lorenzo-el-Eeal.     Treaty.     Spain/United  States. 

Art.  II:     Thalweg  Boundary.     Cussy/Hauterive,  ETC,  II,  part 


NORTH    AMERICA  289 

St.  Mary's 

2,  343;  Cussy/Marteng,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  I,  105;  Malloy,  TJST, 
1640,  1642.  (Commentary:  THE  APOLLON,  1824,  IX 
WHEATON,  362;  MOORE,  ILD,  I,  627.) 
J5iP;  Feb.  22:  Washington.  Treaty.  Spain/United  States.  Art.  2: 
Cession  of  The  Eloridas  to  the  United  States;  The  St.  Mary's 
River  thus  becoming  a  National  Waterway.  Art.  12 :  Annulling 
Articles  2,  3,  4,  21,  &  22,  sec.  2  of  Treaty  of  San  Lorenzo-el-Real ; 
Oct.  27,  1795.  Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  II,  part  2,  361;  Malloy, 
UST,  1651-57. 

ST.  MARY'S.  See:    BOUNDARY  WATERWAYS; 

MILK/ST.  MARY'S  RIVER  SYSTEM. 
ST.  OURS  CANAL.     See  CANALS. 

ST.  PETER'S  CANAL.    See  CANALS. 

SAISAGINAGA.    See    BOUNDARY   WATERWAYS;    Superior- 
Lake  of  the  Woods  System. 

SAN  JUAN 

1858 ;  Apr.  15 :  Treaty.  Costa  Rica  &  Nicaragua.  Art.  II :  Demar- 
cation of  Water-Boundary.  Art.  IV:  Costa  Rica  to  be  jointly 
responsible  for  Custody  &  Defense  of  the  River.  Art.  VI:  Ex- 
clusive Jurisdiction  over  the  River  Granted  to  Nicaragua,  sub- 
ject to  Free  Navigation  by  Costa  Rican  Vessels.  MOORE,  Int. 
Arbs.,  4706-4707. 


(NOTE : 

(1852;  Apr.  30:  Treaty.  Washington.  Great  Britain  &  United 
States.  (Webster-Crampton  Agreement.)  Art.  Ill:  Concern- 
ing the  Costa  Rican/Nicaraguan  Boundary;  Navigation  of  the 
San  Juan  River.) 

(NOTE: 

(Costa  Rican  Claims  to  the  Enjoyment  of  the  River.  GB.  BFSP, 
1860,  pg.  52.) 


1886;  Mar.  16:  Law.  Decree  of  the  Costa  Rican  Government,  con- 
cerning Fluvial  Navigation.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  78,  803.  (NOTE : 
Operation  of  this  law  was  suspended  on  Dec.  24,  1886.) 

1886;  Dec.  24:  Guatemala.  Treaty.  Costa  Rica/Nicaragua.  Sub- 
mitting the  Controversy  concerning  the  Validity  of  the  Treaty 
of  Apr.  15,  1858,  to  the  Arbitration  of  the  United  States.  Moore, 
Int.  Arbs.,  4704. 

1888 ;  March  22 :  Washington.     Award  of  President  Cleveland.     Com- 


290  NORTH    AMERICA 

San  Juan 

posing  the  Boundary  Dispute  between  Costa  Kica  &  Nicaragua. 
Moore,  Int.  Arbs.,  1945,  1964;  Moore,  ILD,  III,  259.  (Com- 
mentary: Correspondence  relating  to  the  Boundary  Dispute  be- 
tween Costa  Eica  &  Nicaragua:  US.  FOR.  RELS.,  189S,  202, 
216,  266,  270,  281,  286-87,  289,  294;  1894,  180,  192-93.) 
1896 ;  March  27 :  Treaty.  Costa  Rica  &  Nicaragua.  Embodying  the 
Award  of  President  Cleveland  composing  the  Boundary  Dispute 
between  the  Two   Nations.     US.   FOR.   RELS.,   1896,   100-102. 

(NOTE:  For  the  Award  of  General  Alexander,  appointed  En- 
gineer-Umpire by  President  Cleveland,  in  conformity  with  Terms 
of  the  Treaty  of  March  27,  1896,  see  US.  FOR.  RELS.,  1897, 
111,  113-116,  330,  419-21.) 

SAULT  SAINTE  MARIE;  or  ST.  MARY'S  CANAL. 

See:    CANALS; 
GREAT  LAKES  &  CONNECTING  WATERS. 

SEGOVIA.     See  COCO. 

SIBUN.     See  BELIZE. 

SOULANGES  CANAL.     See  CANALS. 

STIKINE 

1871;  May  8:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Art.  26 :  "  Navigation  .  .  .  ascending  and  descending,  from,  to, 
and  into  the  sea,  shall  forever  remain  free  and  open  for  the 
purposes  of  commerce  .  .  .  subject  to  any  laws  and  regulations  of 
either  country  within  its  own  territory,  not  inconsistent  with 
such  privilege  of  free  navigation."  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  61,  51-52 ; 
Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  XIII,  970,  981-82;  Malloy,  UST,  700,  711. 
(Commentary:  MOORE,  Am.  Dipl.,  83;  MOORE,  ILD,  I,  635- 
36;  US.  FOR.  RELS.,  1892,  335,  337;  WESTLAKE,  Int.  Law, 
I,  158.) 

1898 ;  May  9  :  Washington.  Law.  United  States.  Navigation  Regu- 
lations.    US.  Treasury  Dept.  Circ,  No.  76. 

1903;  Jan.  24:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Arts.  1-6 :  Providing  for  Submission  of  the  Existing  Boundary 
Dispute  to  an  Arbitral  Tribunal.     Malloy,  UST,  787. 

1903 ;  Oct.  20 :  Washington.  Decision.  Final  Award  by  the  Arbitral 
Tribunal  constituted  by  Treaty  of  Washington,  Jan.  24,  1903 ;  es- 
tablishing the  Disputed  International  Boundary  upon  the  Main- 
land.   Malloy,   UST,   792;   US.    FOR.    RELS.,    1903,   pg.    543. 


NORTH   AMERICA  291 

Stikine 

(Commentary:  ALVERSTONE,  Eecollections  of  Bench  & 
Bar  (London,  1914);  MOORE,  Am.  Dipl.,  213-14,  219; 
MOORE,  ILD,  466-475.) 

SUPERIOR  LAKE  See  also :     BOUNDARY  WATERWAYS ; 

GREAT  LAKES  &  CONNECTING  WATERS. 
1782;  Nov.  30:  Paris.     Provisional  Treaty. 
1783 ;  Sept.  3 :  Paris.     Definitive  Treaty  of  Peace.     Great  Britain/ 

United  States.     Art.  II:     Demarcation  of  International  Bomid- 

ary.     Malloy,  UST,  580-81;  586-88. 
1814;  Dec.  24:  Ghent.     Treaty.     Great  Britain/United  States.     Arts. 

6,  7:     International  Boundary.     Hertslet,   COM.   TR.,  II,  378, 

383;  Malloy,  UST,  612-619. 
1908;  Apr.  11:  Washington.     Treaty.     Great  Britain/United  States. 

Treaty  No.  I :     Boundary  &  Navigation  Regulations.     Treaty  No. 

II:     Protection  of  Fisheries.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  101,  224;  Malloy, 

815,  827. 
1909;  Jan.  11:  Washington.     Treaty.     Great  Britain/United  States. 

Art.  I:     Perpetual  Freedom  of  Navigation  for  Vessels  of  Both 

Nations.     Charles,  UST,  39 ;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  102,  137 ;  Martens, 

NRG,  Ser.  3,  IV,  208 ;  US.  FOR.  RELS.,  1910,  pg.  533. 

TINTO.    See  NEGRO. 

TRENT  CANAL.     See  CANALS. 

ULUA 

1880 ;  Nov.   1 :   Tegucigalpa.     Constitution.     Republic  of  Honduras. 

Chap.  IV,  Sec.  26 :     Freedom  of  Navigation  granted  to  All  Flags. 

Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  17,  777. 
1904 ;  Sept.  2 :  Tegucigalpa.     Constitution.     Republic  of  Honduras. 

Chap.  XVIII,  Art.  141:     Navigation  of  the  River  opened  freely 

to  the  Merchant  Vessels  of  All  Nations.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  97, 

1255,  1257. 

WALLIS.     See  BELIZE. 
WANKS.     See  COCO. 

WELLAND  CANAL  See  also:    CANALS; 

GREAT  LAKES  &  CONNECTING  WATERS. 

1871;  May  8:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Art.  27:  Freedom  of  Navigation  granted  American  Vessels  on 
Absolute  Equality  with  Canadian.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  61,  51-52; 
Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  XIII,  970,  981-82;  Malloy,  UST,  700,  711. 


292  NORTH    AMERICA 

Williamsburg  Canal 

WILLIAMSBURG  CANAL.     See  CANALS. 

YORO.    See  COCO. 

YUKON 

1871;  May  8:  Washington.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/United  States. 
Art.  26 :  "  Navigation  .  .  .  ascending  and  descending,  from,  to, 
and  into  the  sea,  shall  forever  remain  free  and  open  for  the 
purposes  of  commerce  .  .  .  subject  to  any  laws  and  regulations 
of  either  country  within  its  own  territory,  not  inconsistent  with 
such  privilege  of  free  navigation."  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  61,  51-52 ; 
Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  XIII,  970,  981-82 ;  Malloy,  UST,  700,  711. 
(Commentary :  MOORE,  Am.  Dipl.,  83 ;  MOORE,  ILD,  626-36 ; 
US.  FOR.  RELS.,  1892,  335,  337;  WESTLAKE,  Int.  Law,  I, 
158.) 

1898 ;  Feb.  2 :  Washington.  Law.  United  States.  Navigation  Regu- 
lations.    US.  Treas.  Dept.  Circ,  No.  24. 

1898;  Feb.  5:  Ottawa.  Law.  Canadian  Government.  Regulations 
governing  Navigation  within  British  Territory.  US.  Treas.  Dept. 
Circular,  No.  26. 

1898 ;  June  6 :  Washington.  Law.  United  States.  Navigation  Reg- 
ulations.   US.  Treas.  Dept.  Circ,  No.  98. 


SOUTH  AMERICA 

AGUARICO;  or  SAN  MIGUEL.  See:    AMAZON; 

COLOMBIAN  WATERWAYS; 
PERUVIAN  WATERWAYS. 
AMAKURU 

1897;  Feb.  2:  Treaty.  Great  Britain  &  the  United  States  of  Vene- 
zuela. Art.  II :  Providing  for  Submission  of  Boundary  Dispute 
to  an  Arbitral  Tribunal.     Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  21,  1123. 

1899 ;  Oct.  3 :  Paris.  Decision.  Award  of  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration 
constituted  under  Art.  II  of  Treaty  of  Feb.  2,  1897.  Composing 
Boundary  Dispute  between  Great  Britain  &  Venezuela  and  Pro- 
viding that,  in  time  of  Peace,  Merchant  Vessels  of  All  Nations 
should  enjoy  Freedom  of  Navigation.  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol. 
21,  1123.  (Commentary:  ALVERSTONE,  Recollections  of 
Bench  &  Bar,  London,  1914,  pg.  239 ;  HALL,  5th  Edit,  Int.  Law, 
112-113;  OPPENHEIM,  Int.  Law,  I,  228;  US.,  50th  Cong.,  2nd 
Sess.,  House  Exec.  Doc,  Vol.  I,  698.) 


SOUTH    AMERICA  293 

Amazon 
AMAZON 

*  Conventions  concerning  Liberty  of  Navigation  preceding  the  Bra- 
zilian Imperial  Decree  of  December  7,  1866,  establishing  Uni- 
versal Freedom. 

1851;  July  26:  Lima.  Treaty.  Peru/United  States.  Art.  Ill: 
Most  Favored  Nation  Treatment.  Art.  X :  Participation  in 
Fluvial  Navigation.  Malloy,  UST,  1388;  Moore,  ILD,  I,  641. 
(NOTE:  This  Convention  was  terminated,  Dec.  9,  1863,  upon 
Preliminary  Notice  tendered  by  Peru  in  1862.) 

1851;  Oct.  23:  Lima.  Treaty.  Brazil/Peru.  Establishing  Eeci- 
procal  Freedom  of  Navigation,  including  Affluents.  Annuaire 
des  Deux  Mondes,  (1852-1853),  pg.  934;  Cussy/Martens,  Rec. 
Man.,  Ser.  I,  VI,  640;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  42,  1308;  US.,  33rd 
Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  House  Misc.  Doc,  No.  22,  pg.  13.  (Commentary: 
This  Treaty  expired  October  23,  1858,  being  followed  by  a  tem- 
porary Fluvial  Convention.  MOORE,  ILD,  I,  645;  SCHUY- 
LER, Am.  Dipl.,  330;  WOOLSEY,  Int.  Law,  sec.  62.) 

1852;  Aug.  30:  Rio  de  Janeiro.  Law  (Imperial  Decree).  Brazilian 
Government.  Regulating  Navigation  by  Steam  Vessels.  GB. 
BFSP,  Vol.  42,  1304. 

1853;  Jan.  27:  La  Paz.  Law.  Decree  of  the  Bolivian  Government. 
Declaring  all  navigable  Bolivian  Waterways,  affluent  to  the  Ama- 
zon, free  to  the  commerce  &  navigation  of  all  nations.  GB. 
BFSP,  Vol.  55,  505;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  13,  152-53;  US. 
33rd  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  House  Misc.  Doc,  No.  22,  pg.  16. 

1853 ;  Apr.  15 :  Lima.  Law.  Decree  of  Peruvian  Government  estab- 
lishing Loreto  &  Nauto  as  Ports  of  Entry  for  Vessels  from  Brazil 
&  Most  Favored  Nations.     Moore,  ILD,  I,  641. 

(Commentary:  REFUSAL  OF  BRAZIL  TO  ABIDE  BY  TERMS 
OF  TREATY  OF  LIMA;  OCTOBER  23,  1851. 

(1853 ;  July  13 :  Lima.  Invitation  extended  by  the  Peruvian  Govern- 
ment to  Brazil,  Ecuador,  New  Granada,  &  Venezuela  to  attend  a 
Conference  at  Lima  for  the  purpose  of  placing  Amazonian  Nav- 
igation on  Equitable  Basis.  US.  33rd  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  House 
Misc  Doc,  No.  22,  pg.  22. 

(1853;  Oct.  17:  Quito.  President  of  Ecuador  (Urbina)  to  Brazilian 
E.  E.  &  M.  P.  in  Ecuador  (Lisboa),  assuring  cooperation  of  Ec- 
uador in  promoting  navigation  on  the  Amazon.  US.,  33rd  Cong., 
1st  Sess.,  House  Misc.  Doc,  No.  22,  pg.  11. 

(1853;   Dec.    5:   Washington.     First  Annual   Message   of   President 


294  SOUTH    AMERICA 

Amazon 

Pierce,  assailing  the  Restrictive  Policy  maintained  by  Brazil. 
Richardson,  Messages  &  Papers,  V,  211. 
(1854;  Jan.  13:  New  York.  Formal  Notice  issued  by  the  Consulate- 
General  of  the  Brazilian  Empire  that  Observance  of  Treaty  of 
Lima,  Oct.  23,  1851,  by  Brazil  was  terminated.  US.  33rd  Cong., 
1st  Sess.,  House  Misc.  Doc,  No.  22,  pg.  13.) 

1854 ;  Jan.  4 :  Lima.  Law.  Decree  of  Peruvian  Government  modify- 
ing Decree  of  April  15,  1853,  by  restricting  Navigation  to  Brazil- 
ian Vessels.     Moore,  ILD,  I,  645. 

1854;  Oct.  2 :  Rio  de  Janeiro.  Law.  Decree  of  the  Brazilian  Govern- 
ment revising  contract  with  the  Company  for  the  Navigation  & 
Commerce  of  the  Amazon.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  58,  678. 

(NOTE :  '  " 

(1854;  Dec.  4:  Washington.  Second  Annual  Message  of  President 
Pierce,  referring  to  unsuccessful  endeavors  to  secure  Freedom  of 
Navigation.     Richardson,  Messages  &  Papers,  "V,  280. 

1858;  May  13:  La  Paz.  Treaty.  Bolivia/United  States.  Arts.  26, 
27:  Freedom  of  Navigation;  confirming  rights  previously 
granted  by  Decree  of  January  27,  1853.  Malloy,  UST,  113 ;  US. 
FOR.  RELS.,  1871,  pg.  41. 

1858;  Nov.  — :  Treaty.  Brazil  &  Peru.  Provisionally  securing  for 
Peru  the  Privilege  of  Navigation,  subject  to  charges  for  lighting, 
pilotage,  &  police  supervision.     Moore,  ILD,  I,  645. 

*  Institution  of  Universal  Freedom  of  Navigation. 

1866;  Dec.  7:  Rio  de  Janeiro.  Law  (Imperial  Decree).  Brazilian 
Government.  Opening  Navigation  to  the  Merchant  Vessels  of 
All  Nations.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  58,  551;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR., 
XIII,  157.  (Commentary:  HALL,  Int.  Law,  5th  Edit.,  138- 
139 ;  MOORE,  ILD,  I,  640-641,  645 ;  RICHARDSON,  Messages 
&  Papers,  VI,  578 :  Third  Annual  Message  of  President  Andrew 
.  Johnson ;  ''  Brazil,  with  enlightened  sagacity  &  comprehensive 
statesmanship,  has  opened  the  great  channels  of  the  Amazon 
&  its  tributaries  to  universal  commerce.";  SCHUYLER,  Am. 
Dipl.,  344;  US.  33rd  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  House  Exec.  Doc,  No.  53, 
parts  1  &  2;  House  Misc.  Doc,  No.  22;  US.,  32nd  Cong.,  2nd 
Sess.,  Sen.  Exec.  Doc,  No.  32.) 

1867;  July  31 :  Rio  de  Janeiro.  Law.  (Imperial  Decree).  Brazilian 
Government.  Navigation  Regulations;  enumerating  tributaries 
open  to  commerce.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  58,  551-567;  Hertslet,  COM. 
TR.,  XIIL  158. 


SOUTH    AMERICA  295 

Amazon 

1868;  Dec.   17:  Lima.     Law.     Decree  of  Peruvian  Government  de- 
claring Navigation  of  All  Eivers  open  to  Merchant  Vessels  irre- 
spective of  Nationality.     GB.   BFSP,   Vol.   65,   1240;   Hertslet, 
COM.  TR,  XIV,  432.     (Commentary:     WHEATON,  Elem.  Int 
Law  (Lawrence'  Edit.),  363-365.) 
1873;  Jan.  25:  Eio  de  Janeiro.     Law  (Imperial  Decree).     Brazilian 
Government.     Extending  further  facilities  for  Navigation  upon 
the  tributary  Madeira.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  65,  607;  Hertslet,  COM 
TR,  XIV,  202;  US.  FOR  RELS.,  1899,  pg.  123. 
1891;  Oct.  10:  Treaty.     Brazil  &  Peru.     Providing  Additional  Nav- 
igation Eegulations.     US.  FOR  EELS.,  1903,  pgs.  36-43.     (Com- 
mentary:    MOOEE,  ILD,  I,  647.) 
1902 ;  Aug.  8 :  Eio  de  Janeiro.     Circular  Notice  issued  by  Brazilian 
Government.     Suspending  Freedom  of  Amazonian  Navigation  for 
Bolivian  Exports  &  Imports.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  95,  774.     (Com- 
mentary:    Vigorous    Protests    submitted   by   France,    Germany, 
Great    Britain,    Switzerland,    &    the    United    States.     MOOEe', 
"Brazil  &  Peru  Boundary  Question,"  pg.  13.) 
1903;  Feb.  20:  Eio  de  Janeiro.     Law  (Circular  Notice.)     Brazilian 
Government.     Partial   Eestoration   of   Freedom   of   Commercial 
Navigation;  Transportation  of  Munitions  of  War  destined  for 
Bolivia  being  prohibited.     GB.   BFSP,  Vol.   96,  pg.   388-   US 
FOR  RELS.,  1903,  pg.  42. 
1903;  Nov.  17:  Petropolis.     Treaty.     Bolivia  &  Brazil.     Establishing 
in  perpetuity  the  most  ample  Freedom  of  Transit  &  Fluvial  Navi- 
gation for  Both  Nations,  recognizing  the  Eight  of  Each  to  Main- 
tain Customs  Agents  in   Certain  Ports  of  the  Other  Country. 
US.  FOE.  EELS.,  1903,  pg.  36-43.     (Commentary:     MOOEE, 
"Brazil  &  Peru  Boundary  Question,"  pgs.  15-16.) 
1904;  July  12:  Eio  de  Janeiro.     Agreement.     Brazil,/Peru.     Provi- 
sional  Stipulations   for   Settlement  of  Navigation   Controversy 
Moore,  ILD,  I,  648;  US.  FOE.  EELS.,  1903,  36-43. 
1907;     Apr.     24:     Bogota.     Treaty.     Brazil/Colombia.     Eecognized 
Freedom  of  Navigation  between  Colombian  Territory  &  the  Sea 
on  all  Affluents  of  the  Amazon  navigable  within  Colombian  Do- 
minion.    Am.    Jour.   Int.   Law,   Vol.   Ill,   Suppl.,   pg    97-    GB 
BFSP,  Vol.  100,  809-810. 
1908;  Aug.  21:  Eio  de  Janeiro.     Treaty.     Brazil  &  Colombia.     Art. 
I:     Absolute  Freedom  of  Navigation  for  Brazilian  &  Colombian 
Vessels.    Art.  17:     This  Freedom  established  in  Perpetuity.     Am. 
Jour.  Int.  Law,  Vol.  5,  Suppl.,  pg.  79, 
1909;    Sept.    8:    Eio    de    Janeiro.     Treaty.     Brazil/Peru.     Complete 


296  SOUTH    AMERICA 

Amazon 

Freedom  of  Navigation  on  All  Amazonian  Affluents  navigable 
within  Peru.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  102,  199 ;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3, 
VI,  849,  851. 
1910 ;  Aug.  12 :  Rio  de  Janeiro.  Treaty.  Bolivia/Brazil.  Art.  VIII : 
Merchant  Vessels  of  All  Nations  granted  Freedom  of  Navigation 
between  Bolivia  &  the  Sea.     Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  VII,  632. 

(NOTE : 

(Special  Concessions  were  extended  to  Brazilian  passenger  &  cargo 
vessels  under  Presidential  Decree  of  November,  1914,  for  reor- 
ganization of  the  Brazilian  merchant  marine  &  coasting  trade. 
GB.  Dipl.  &  Consular  Reports,  No.  5451,  pg.  38.) 


APURE  See  also :     COLOMBIAN  WATERWAYS ; 

ORINOCO. 

1847;  May  14:  Caracas.     Law.     Decree  of  Venezuelan  Government 

granting  Exclusive  Privileges  of  Navigation  to  certain  American 

Citizens.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  39,  1348. 
1849;   May  2:   Caracas.     Law.     Decree  of  Venezuelan   Government 

granting  Exclusive  Navigation  Privileges  to  certain  American 

Citizens.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  39,  1079. 

ARAGUARY;  or  ARAWARI 

1802;  March  27:  Amiens.  Convention.  Batavian  Republic,  France, 
Great  Britain,  Spain.  Art.  7 :  Provided  that  Navigation  should 
be  enjoyed  in  common  throughout  the  Course  by  the  two  Adjacent 
Nations;  France  &  Portugal.  Clercq,  RTF,  I,  484-486.  (Com- 
mentary:    ENGELHARDT,  Hist.  Droit  Fluv.  Conv.,  81.) 

ARGENTINE  WATERWAYS 

Notably  the  Rivers: 

Chico ;  Pilcomayo ; 

Chubut;  Rio  de  la  Plata ; 

Colorado ;  Salado ; 

Deseado;  Santa  Cruz; 

Gallegos ;  Uruguay ; 

Negro;  or  Sauces;  Vermejo;  or  Bermejo;  or  Rio 


Paraguay ;  Grande. 

Parana; 


SOUTH    AMERICA  297 

Argentine  Waterways 

1860 ;  Sept.  25 :  Buenos  Aires.  Law.  Constitution  of  the  Argen- 
tine Confederation.  Art.  26 :  "  Navigation  on  the  rivers  in  the 
interior  of  the  nation  is  free  to  ALL  flags,  and  subject  to  no 
other  regulations  than  those  proclaimed  by  the  national  au- 
thority." Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions  (1909),  I,  pg.  8;  Hert- 
slet,  COM.  TR,  XII,  117. 

ATKATO.    See  COLOMBIAN  WATERWAYS. 

BARIMA 

1897;  Feb.  2:  Treaty.  Great  Britain  &  Venezuela.  Stipulating 
Freedom  of  Navigation  for  Merchant  Vessels  of  All  Nations. 
Art.  II:  Providing  for  Submission  of  Boundary  Dispute  to  an 
Arbitral  Tribunal.     Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  21,  1123. 

1899;  Oct.  3:  Paris.  Decision.  Award  of  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitra- 
tion constituted  under  Art  II  of  Treaty  of  Feb.  2,  1897.  Com- 
posing Boundary  Dispute  between  Great  Britain  &  Venezuela; 
Providing,  further,  that  Merchant  Vessels  of  All  Nations,  in 
time  of  peace,  should  enjoy  Freedom  of  Navigation.  Hertslet, 
COM.  TR.,  Vol.  21.  1123.  (Commentary:  ALVERSTONE, 
Recollections  of  Bench  &  Bar,  (London,  1914),  pg.  239; 
HALL,  Int.  Law,  5th  Edit.,  112-113 ;  OPPENHEIM,  Int.  Law, 
I,  228;  US.,  50th  Cong.,  2nd  Sess.,  House  Exec.  Doc,  Vol.  I, 
698.) 

BENI.     See  also:     BOLIVIAN  WATERWAYS. 

1853;  Jan.  27:  La  Paz.     Law.     Decree  of  the  Bolivian  Government. 

Freedom   of  Fluvial   Navigation.     Hertslet,   COM.    TR.,   XIII, 

152-153. 

BERMEJO.     See  VERMEJO;  Argentine  Waterways. 

BOLIVIAN  WATERWAYS 

Notably  the  Rivers  of  the  Amazonian  System;  the  Abima,  or 
Negro;  Beni;  Madeira;  &  Mamore;  and  of  the  Rio  de  la  Plata 
System;  the  Paraguay  &  Pilcomayo. 

1853;  Jan.  27:  La  Paz.  Law  (Presidential  Decree).  Bolivian  Gov- 
ernment. Declaring  that  All  Navigable  Waterways  within  the 
National  Domain  &  Affluent  to  the  Amazon  &  Rio  de  la  Plata  to 
be  free  to  the  Commerce  &  Navigation  of  All  Nations.  GB. 
BFSP,  Vol.  55,  505 ;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  XIII,  152-53. 

1908 ;  July  22 :  La  Paz.  Treaty.  Bolivia/Germany.  Art.  IV :  Bo- 
livia  accords   the   right   of   Free   Navigation   on   All   Bolivian 


298  SOUTH    AMERICA 

Bolivian  Waterways 

Waterways  to  the  Merchant  Marine  of  Imperial  Germany.  Mar- 
tens, NEG,  Ser.  3,  IV,  284:. 
1910;  Aug.  12:  Rio  de  Janeiro.  Treaty.  Bolivia/Brazil.  Art. 
VIII:  Freedom  of  Navigation  for  the  Merchant  Vessels  of  All 
Nations  between  Bolivia  &  the  Sea.  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3, 
Vn,  632. 


BOUNDARY  WATERWAYS 

BOLIVIA/BRAZIL 

1910 ;  Aug.  12 :  Rio  de  Janeiro.  Treaty.  Reciprocal  Freedom  of 
Navigation  on  all  Boundary  Waterways.  Martens,  NRG,  Ser. 
3,  VII,  632. 

BRAZIL/COLOMBIA 

1908;  Aug.  21:  Rio  de  Janeiro.  Treaty.  Mutual  Liberty  of  Nav- 
igation on  All  Boundary  &  Bi-National  Waterways.  Martens, 
NRG,  Ser.  3,  IV,  312. 

BRAZIL/URUGUAY 

1909;  Oct.  30:  Rio  de  Janeiro.  Treaty.  Reciprocal  Freedom  of 
Navigation.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  102,  204;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3, 
VI,  858. 

CAQUETA;  or  JAPURA.     See  YAPURA. 

CASIQUIARE  CANAL.     See  AMAZON;  ORINOCO. 

CAUCA;  Affluent  of  Madeira  River.     See  COLOMBIAN  WATER- 
WAYS. 

CHAMBIRA;  or  CHAMBIRA-YACU.  See  AMAZON;  ECUA- 
DOREAN  WATERWAYS;  PERUVIAN  WATERWAYS. 

CHAP  ARE.    See  also  BOLIVIAN  WATERWAYS. 

1853;  Jan.  27:  La  Paz.  Law  (Presidential  Decree).  Bolivian  Gov- 
ernment. Opened  freely  to  the  Commercial  Navigation  of  All 
Nations.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  55,  505 ;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  XIII, 
152-53. 

CHICAMOCHA.     See  SOGAMOSO. 

CHICO.     See  ARGENTINE  WATERWAYS. 

CHIMORE.     See  also  BOLIVIAN  WATERWAYS. 

1853;  Jan.  27:  La  Paz.     Law  (Presidential  Decree).     Bolivian  Gov- 


SOUTH    AMERICA  299 

Chimore 

ernment.  Freedom  of  Commercial  Navigation  available  for  Ves- 
sels of  All  Nations.  GB.  BFSP.,  Vol.  55,  505;  Hertslet,  COM. 
TR,  XIII,  152-53. 

CHUBUT.    See  AEGENTINE  WATERWAYS. 

COCA;  Affluent  of  Napo  Kiver.  See  AMAZON;  COLOMBIAN, 
ECUADOEEAN,  &  PERUVIAN  WATERWAYS. 

COLOMBIAN  WATERWAYS 

(NEW  GRANADIAN)     Notahly  the  Rivers: 

*Aguarico,  or  San  Miguel;  **Meta; 

**  Apure ;  *  Napo ; 

Atrato;  *Putumayo,  or  Iga; 
Cauca ;  Sogamoso,  or  Chicamocha ; 

*  Coca ;  *  Waupes,  or  TJapes ; 

**  Guaviare,  or  Guabiare ;  *  Yapura,  or  Japura,  or  Ca- 
**  Inirida ;  queta. 

Magdalena ; 

*  Amazonian  System. 
**  Affluent  of  Orinoco. 

1852;  Apr.  7:  Bogota.  Law.  Government  of  New  Granada.  Free- 
dom of  Navigation  accorded  Native  (Domestic)  &  Foreign  Steam 
Vessels.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  63,  1079;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR,  XIV, 
421. 

1856;  May  24:  Bogota.  Law.  New  Granada.  Fluvial  Navigation 
open  to  Vessels  of  All  Nations.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  63,  1080 ;  Hert- 
slet, COM.  TR.,  XIV,  421. 

1861;  July  30:  Bogota.  Law.  Decree  of  Government  of  New 
Granada.  Freedom  of  Navigation  for  Steam  Vessels.  GB. 
BFSP,  Vol.  63,  1081 ;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  XIV,  424. 

1864;  May  19/25:  Bogota.  Law.  United  States  of  Colombia.  Na- 
vigation Regulations;  qualifying  former  freedom.  GB.  BFSP, 
Vol,  61,  140 ;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR,  XIII,  363 ;  XIV,  251. 

1907;  Apr.  24:  Bogota.  Treaty.  Brazil/Colombia.  Recognized 
Freedom  of  Navigation  between  Colombian  Territory  &  the  Sea 
on  all  Affluents  of  the  Amazon  navigable  within  Colombian 
Dominion.  Am.  Jour.  Int.  Law,  III,  Suppl.,  97;  GB.  BFSP, 
Vol.  100,  809-810. 

1908;  Aug.  21:  Rio  de  Janeiro.  Treaty.  Brazil/Colombia.  Art. 
I:  Absolute  Freedom  of  Navigation  for  Brazilian  &  Colombian 


300  SOUTH    AMERICA 

Colombian  Waterways 

Vessels.     Art.  17 :  This  Freedom  established  in  Perpetuity.     Am. 
J.  Int.  Law,  V,  79. 

COLORADO.     See  ARGENTINE  WATERWAYS. 

CONL     See  also  BOLIVIAN  WATERWAYS. 

1853;  Jan.  27:  La  Paz.     Law.     Bolivian  Government.     Freedom  of 

Commercial  Navigation   available  for  Vessels   of   All  Nations. 

GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  55,  505;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  XIII,  152-153. 

CORIOCO;  or  CORISCO.     See  also  BOLIVIAN  WATERWAYS. 
1853;  Jan.  27:  La  Paz.     Law.     Bolivian  Government.     Freedom  of 

Commercial   Navigation   available   for  Vessels   of  All   Nations. 

GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  55,  505;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  XIII,  152-53. 

CURARAY;  Affluent  of  Napo  River.  See  AMAZON;  ECUADOR- 
EAN  WATERWAYS ;  PERUVIAN  WATERWAYS. 

DESEADO.     See  ARGENTINE  WATERWAYS. 

ECUADOREAN  WATERWAYS 

Notably  the  Rivers  tributary  to  the  Amazon: 

Chambira,  or  Chambira-Yacu ; 

Coca ; 

Curaray ; 

Napo; 

Pastaga,  or  Pastasa,  or  Pastaza ; 

Paute ; 

Tigre,  or  Nigre,  or  Pequena. 

1853;  Nov.  26:  Quito.  Law.  Decree  of  the  Ecuadorean  Govern- 
ment. Establishing  Freedom  of  Navigation  on  All  Affluents  of 
the  Amazon  within  the  National  Dominion;  expressly  stipulat- 
ing the  entire  exemption  from  all  charges  or  duties  on  vessels 
&  cargoes.  US.,  33rd  Cong.,  1st  Sess,  House  Misc.  Doc,  No.  22, 
12.  (Commentary:  MOORE,  ILD,  I,  627;  PHILLIMORE,  Int. 
Law,  I,  246;  WHEATON,  Elem.  Int.  Law  (Lawrence),  Chap. 
IV,  270,  citing  ANNUAIRE  DES  DEUX  MONDES,  1853/1854, 
pg.  824.) 

1870;  Jan.  31;  Quito.  Law.  Decree  of  the  Ecuadorean  Government. 
Restricting  operation  of  the  Law  of  Nov.  26,  1853,  by  limiting 
navigation  of  Inland  Waterways  to  Vessels  of  Ecuadorean  Own- 
ership.    Moore,  ILD,  I,  627. 

GALLEGOS.    See  ARGENTINE  WATERWAYS. 


SOUTH    AMERICA  301 

Guaviare 
GUAVIAEE ;  or  GUABI ARE.     See  COLOMBIAN  WATERWAYS ; 

ORINOCO. 

HUALLAGA.    See  AMAZON ;  PERUVIAN  WATERWAYS. 

HYABARY;  or  YACARANA;  or  YAQUIRANO.     See  YAVARI. 

ICA.    SeePUTUMAYO. 

INIRIDA.     See  COLOMBIAN  WATERWAYS;  ORINOCO. 

IRENG 

1904;  June  6:  Rome.  Decision.  Arbitral  Award  rendered  by  the 
King  of  Italy.  Establishing  Boundary  between  Brazil  &  British 
Guiana  in  Thalweg  &  stipulating,  further,  that  Both  Nations 
should  enjoy  Freedom  of  Navigation.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  99,  930. 

ITENES;  or  ITENEZ.     See  also  BOLIVIAN  WATERWAYS. 
1853;  Jan.  27:  La  Paz.     Law.     Bolivian  Government.     Freedom  of 

Commercial   Navigation   available   for   Vessels   of  All   Nations. 

GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  55,  505;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR,  XIII,  152-153. 

JAGUARY;  or  YAGUARON 

1909;  Oct.  30:  Rio  de  Janeiro.  Treaty.  Brazil/Uruguay.  Re- 
ciprocal &  Exclusive  Freedom  of  Navigation  for  Merchant  Ves- 
sels of  Both  Nations;  including  free  passage  through  the  Brazil- 
ian waters  of  Lagoa  de  los  Patos,  Rio  Grande  San  Pedro,  &  Rio 
San  Gonzalo.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  102,  204;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser. 
3,  VI,  858. 

JAPURA;  or  CAQUETA.  See  YAPURA 

LAGOA  DE  LOS  PATOS 

1909;  Oct.  30:  Rio  de  Janerio.  Treaty.  Brazil/Uruguay.  Re- 
ciprocal Freedom  of  Navigation.  (Arts.  2,  6.)  GB.  BFSP, 
Vol.  102,  204;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  VI,  858. 

MADEIRA  See  also:    AMAZON; 

BOLIVIAN  WATERWAYS. 
1853;  Jan.  27:  La  Paz.     Law.     Bolivian  Government.     Freedom  of 

Commercial   Navigation   available  for  Vessels   of   All   Nations. 

GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  55,  505;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  XIII,  152-153. 
1866;  Dec.  7:  Rio  de  Janeiro.     Law   (Imperial  Decree).     Brazilian 

Government.     Opening  Navigation  to  the  Merchant  Vessels  of 

All  Nations.     GB.  BFSP.,  Vol.  58,  551;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR., 

XIII,  157. 
1867;  July  31:  Rio  de  Janeiro.    Law  (Imperial  Decree).    Brazilian 


302  SOUTH    AMEEICA 

Madeira 

Government.  Navigation  Regulations;  enumerating  tributaries 
open  to  commerce.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  58,  551-567;  Hertslet, 
COM.  TR.,  XIII,  158. 

1873;  Jan.  25:  Rio  de  Janeiro.  Law  (Imperial  Decree).  Extending 
further  facilities  for  Navigation.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  65,  607; 
Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  XIV,  202;  US.  FOR.  RELS.,  (1899),  123. 

1903;  Nov.  17:  Petropolis.  Treaty.  Bolivia  &  Brazil.  Establish- 
ing in  perpetuity  the  most  ample  Freedom  of  Transit  &  Fluvial 
Navigation  for  Both  Nations.     US.  FOR.  RELS,  (1903),  36^3. 

1910;  Aug.  12:  Rio  de  Janeiro.  Treaty.  Bolivia/Brazil.  Art. 
VIII:  Merchant  Vessels  of  All  Nations  granted  Freedom  of 
Navigation  between  Bolivia  &  the  Sea.  Martens,  NRG,  Ser. 
3,  VII,  632. 

MAGDALENA.     See  COLOMBIAN  WATERWAYS. 

MAMORE.     See  also  BOLIVIAN  WATERWAYS. 

1853;  Jan.  27:  La  Paz.  Law.  Decree  of  the  Bolivian  Government. 
Freedom  of  Commercial  Navigation  accorded  Vessels  of  All  Na- 
tions. GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  55,  505;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  XIII, 
152-53. 

MAPIRE.    See  also  BOLIVIAN  WATERWAYS. 

1853;  Jan.  27:  La  Paz.  Law.  Decree  of  the  Bolivian  Government. 
Freedom  of  Commercial  Navigation  accorded  Vessels  of  All  Na- 
tions. GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  55,  505;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  XIII, 
152-53. 

MARACAIBO;  or  MARACAYBO;  LAKE,  including  TRIBU- 
TARY WATERS.     See  also  VENEZUELAN  WATERWAYS. 

1869;  May  14:  Caracas.  Law.  Congress  of  the  United  States  of 
Venezuela.  Art.  I:  Opening  the  Lake  &  All  Tributary  Waters 
"in  all  the  extension  of  Venezuela  to  merchant  steam  vessels 
under  foreign  flags."     Moore,  Int.  Arbs.,  II,  1696. 

1869 ;  July  1 :  Caracas.  Law.  Presidential  Decree  in  conformity 
with  Law  of  May  14,  1869.  Arts.  I-VI :  Navigation  Regulations 
applicable  to  the  Lake  &  Tributary  Waters.  Moore,  Int.  Arbs., 
II,  1697-98. 

MARANON.     See  AMAZON;  PERUVIAN  WATERWAYS. 

MORONA.  See  AMAZON;  ECUADOREAN  WATERWAYS; 
PERUVIAN  WATERWAYS. 


SOUTH    AMERICA  303 

Merim  Lake 

MERIM  LAKE 

1909;  Oct.  30:  Eio  de  Janeiro.  Treaty.  Brazil/Uruguay.  Re- 
ciprocal &  Exclusive  Freedom  of  Navigation  for  Merchant  Ves- 
sels of  Both  Countries.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  102,  204;  Martens, 
NRG,  Ser.  Ill,  VI,  1858. 

META.     See  COLOMBIAN  WATERWAYS ;  ORINOCO. 

NAPO ;  including  the  Tributaries :  See  AMAZON, 

Aguarico;  COLUMBIAN 

Coca ;  &  ECUADOREAN  & 

Curaray.  PERUVIAN  WATERWAYS. 

NEGRO.     See  also  AMAZON. 

1866;  Dec.  7:  Rio  de  Janeiro.     Law   (Imperial  Decree).     Brazilian 

Government.     Opening  Navigation  to  the  Merchant  Vessels  of 

All  Nations.     GB.  BESP,  Vol.  58,  551;  Hertslet,  COM.   TR., 

XIII,  157. 
1867;  July  31:  Rio  de  Janeiro.     Law  (Imperial  Decree).     Brazilian 

Government.     Navigation    Regulations.     GB.    BFSP,    Vol.    58, 

551-567;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  XIII,  158. 

NEGRO ;  or  SAUCES.     See  ARGENTINE  WATERWAYS. 
NIGRE;  or  PEQUENA.     See  TIGRE. 

ORINOCO  See  also :     COLOMBIAN  WATERWAYS ; 

VENEZUELAN  WATERWAYS. 

1847;  May  14:  Caracas.  Law.  Decree  of  Venezuelan  Government 
granting  Exclusive  Privileges  of  Navigation  to  certain  Amer- 
ican Citizens.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  39,  1348. 

1849 ;  May  2 :  Caracas.  Law.  Decree  of  Venezuelan  Government 
granting  Exclusive  Navigation  Privileges  to  certain  American 
Citizens.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  39,  1079. 

1864;  Dec.  12:  Caracas.  Law.  Decree  of  Venezuelan  Government 
raising  Blockade  of  the  River.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  55,  293. 

1865;  Jan.  20:  London.  Notification.  British  Government.  Re- 
specting raising  of  the  Blockade  on  Orinoco.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol. 
55,  293. 

1869;  May  14:  Caracas.  Law.  Congress  of  the  United  States  of 
Venezuela.  Art.  I:  Opening  the  River  &  its  Affluents  freely 
to  the  Navigation  of  Foreign  Vessels.  Moore,  Int.  Arbs.,  II, 
1696. 

1869;   July  1:   Caracas.     Law.     Presidential  Decree   in   conformity 


304  SOUTH    AMERICA 

Orinoco 

with  Law  of  May  14,  1869.  Arts.  1-6:  Kegulating  Navigation 
by  Foreign  Merchant  Vessels  upon  the  Orinoco  &  Tributaries. 
Moore,  Int.  Arbs.,  II,  1697-98. 

187S ;  Aug.  (no  date)  :  Caracas.  Law.  Concession  by  Venezuelan 
Government  to  General  Perez  of  Exclusive  Eight  of  Naviga- 
tion on  Orinoco  &  Affluents.  US.,  50th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Sen. 
Ex.  Doc,  No.  139,  pg.  32. 

1880;  Feb.  10:  Caracas.  Law.  Decree  of  Venezuelan  Government. 
Abolishing  Custom  House  at  Ciudad  Bolivar;  Prohibiting  Trade 
with  Ports  along  Orinoco.     GB.   BFSP,  Vol.   71,  226. 

1893;  July  1:  Caracas.  Law.  Decree  of  Venezuelan  Government. 
Closing  Navigation  of  the  Macareo  &  Pedernales  Channels  to 
Vessels  in  Foreign  Trade.  US.  FOE.  EELS.,  (1893),  729,  735, 
737,  740. 

1894;  June  6:  Caracas.  Law.  Decree  of  Venezuelan  Government. 
Instituting  Severe  Penalties  for  Infraction  of  Law  of  July  1, 
1893,  closing  the  Macareo  &  Pedernales  Channels.  US.  FOE. 
EELS,  (1894),  794-95,  798-99.  (Commentary:  HALL,  Int. 
Law,  5th  Edit.,  112-13;  MOOEE,  ILD,  I,  650.) 

(NOTE: 

(EEPOET  OF  COLOMBIAN  MINISTEE  OF  FOEEIGN 
AFFAIES, 

(1894 :  "  This  right  of  Colombia  has  been  confirmed  still  more  now 
that  the  frontier  limits  have  been  decided,  and  it  is  admitted 
that  the  territory  of  our  country  extends  as  far  as  the  left 
bank  of  the  Orinoco.  The  river  there  having  become  inter- 
national, its  navigation  is  free  to  both  countries."  US.  FOE. 
EELS,  (1894),  200.) 

(NOTE : 

(1902;  Nov.  14:  London.  Notification.  British  Government. 
Blockade  of  Venezuelan  Eiver  Ports.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol  95,  471.) 

OYAPOCK 

1815 ;  June  9 :  Vienna.     Final  Act  of  the  Congress  of  Nations.     Art. 

107:    Demarcation    of   Boundary   between   Brazilian    &    French 

Territory.     Hertslet,  Europe,  269. 
1817;   Aug.   28:   Paris.     Convention.     France   &   Portugal.     Art.    I: 

Demarcation  of  International  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Europe,  530. 


SOUTH    AMERICA  305 

Paraguay 
PARAGUAY  See  also :     ARGENTINE  WATERWAYS ; 

BOLIVIAN  WATERWAYS; 
PARAGUAYAN  WATERWAYS. 

1828;  Aug.  27:  Rio  de  Janeiro.  Treaty.  Brazil/Rio  de  la  Plata 
(or  Buenos  Aires,  or  Argentina).  Addit.  Article:  Reciprocal 
Freedom  of  Navigation.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  15,  935,  Martens, 
NRT,  VII,  686. 

1852;  July  15:  Asuncion.  Treaty.  Argentina/Paraguay.  Arts.  7- 
8:  Mutual  Liberty  of  Navigation,  including  Affluents.  GB. 
BFSP,  Vol.  42,  1256-57. 

1852 ;  Aug.  28 :  Buenos  Aires.  Law.  Decree  of  the  Argentine  Con- 
federation. Concerning  Navigation  on  Waterways  within  the 
National  Dominion.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  49,  1261;  Hertslet,  COM. 
TR.,  X,  44. 

1853;  Jan.  27:  La  Paz.  Law.  Decree  of  Bolivian  Government. 
Freedom  of  Commercial  Navigation  accorded  Vessels  of  All  Na- 
tions. GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  55,  505;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  XIII, 
152-53. 

1853;  March  4:  Asuncion.  Treaty.  France/Paraguay.  Art.  II: 
Freedom  of  Navigation  &  Landing  granted  French  Vessels  to 
Ports  of  Asuncion  &  Incarnation  (Encarnacion).  Cussy /Mar- 
tens, Rec.  Man,  Ser.  1,  VII,  179;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  44,  1091. 

1853;  March  4:  Asuncion.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/Paraguay.  Art. 
II:  Freedom  of  Navigation  &  Landing  accorded  British  Vessels. 
Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  1,  VII,  184;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol. 
42,  pg.  19;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  IX,  602-603. 

1853;  March  4:  Asuncion.  Treaty.  Paraguay/Sardinia.  Freedom 
of  Navigation  &  Landing  for  Sardinian  Vessels.  (Citations 
above.) 

1853;  March  4:  Asuncion.  Treaty.  Paraguay/United  States. 
Freedom  of  Navigation  &  Landing,  including  Ports  of  Asuncion 
&  Encarnacion,  granted  American  Vessels.     (Citations  above.) 

(NOTE:  ' 

(1853;  Jime  3:  London.     British  Parliament.     Debate  in  the  House 

of  Lords  respecting  Navigation   of  the  River  Paraguay.     GB. 

(Hansard),  Pari.  Debates,  Vol.  127,  No.  6,  1073-74) 

1853;  July  10:  San  Jose  de  Flores.  Treaty.  Argentina/France. 
Freedom  of  Navigation.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  44,  1071.  (Com- 
mentary: BONFILS,  Droit  Int.,  335;  LAWRENCE,  Int.  Law, 
210.) 

1853;    July    10:    San    Jose    de    Flores.     Treaty.    Argentina/Great 


306  SOUTH    AMERICA 

Paraguay 

Britain.     Freedom  of  Navigation.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  42,  pg.  3. 

1853;  July  10:  San  Jose  de  Flores.  Treaty.  Argentina/United 
States.  Freedom  of  Navigation.  (Commentary:  President 
Franklin  Pierce  refers  to  the  enlightened  policy  of  Argentina 
&  Paraguay  in  opening  their  arterial  waterways  to  the  merchant 
vessels  of  all  nations  in  the  First  Annual  Message;  Washington, 
Dec.  5,  1853.  Eichardson,  Messages  &  Papers,  V,  212.  In  his 
Second  Annual  Message,  President  Franklin  Pierce  discusses 
the  recently  concluded  treaties  with  Argentina,  Paraguay,  & 
Uruguay  establishing  freedom  of  navigation  for  American  ves- 
sels on  the  Bio  de  la  Plata  &  certain  tributaries.  Bichardson, 
Messages  &  Papers,  V,  280.) 

1854 ;  Oct.  3 :  Asuncion.  Law.  Decree  of  the  Paraguayan  Govern- 
ment. Art.  I :  Excluding  Foreign  Vessels  of  War  from  Fluvial 
Navigation.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  45,  1312-13.  (Commentary:  J. 
BUCHANAN,  First  Annual  Message,  Dec.  8,  1857.  Eichard- 
son, Messages  &  Papers,  V,  449.)  (SCHUYLEE,  Am.  Dipl., 
327.) 

1855;  Apr.  27:  Asuncion.  Treaty.  Brazil/Paraguay.  Arts.  2,  20: 
Establishing  Eeciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation  in  perpetuity. 
GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  49,  1195. 

1856;  Mar,  7:  Parana.  Treaty.  Argentina/Brazil.  Arts.  14,  16, 
19 :  Eeciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation  on  the  Eivers  Paraguay, 
Parana,  &  Uruguay.  Cussy/Martens,  Eec.  Man.,  Ser.  1,  VII, 
476;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  46,  1310-14. 

1856;  April  6:  Eio  de  Janeiro.  Treaty.  Brazil/Paraguay.  Arts. 
2,  4:  Eeciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation  on  Eivers  Paraguay  & 
Parana ;  specifically  excluding  Affluents.  Art.  5 :  Exemption 
from  Dues  expressly  stipulated.  Cussy/Martens,  Eec.  Man., 
Ser.  1,  VII,  516-17;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  46,  1299-1300. 

1856;  July  29:  Asuncion.  Treaty.  Argentine/Paraguay.  Art.  17: 
Navigation  of  Eivers  Paraguay,  Parana  &  Vermejo  (Bermejo) 
recognized  as  entirely  Free  &  Common  to  Argentine  &  Para- 
guayan Men-of-War  &  Merchantmen,  in  conformity  with  exist- 
ing Eegulations  in  Both  Eepublics.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  46,  1305. 
(Commentary :  MOOEE,  Int.  Arbs.,  4783.) 

1857;  Nov.  20:  Treaty.  Argentina/Brazil.  Universal  Freedom  of 
Navigation  from  Estuary  of  the  Eiver  La  Plata  to  all  Inland 
Ports.  GB.  BFSP,  VoL  49,  1306.  (Commentary:  BONFILS, 
Droit  Int.,  335;  MOOEE,  Am.  Dipl.,  83,  85.) 

1858;  Feb.  12:  Asuncion.     Agreement.     Brazil/Paraguay.     Protocols 


SOUTH    AMERICA  307 

Paraguay 

of  Conferences  concerning  Mutual  Liberty  of  Fluvial  Naviga- 
tion.    GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  49,  1282,  1284. 

1859;  Feb.  4:  Asuncion.  Treaty.  Paraguay/United  States.  Art. 
II:  Provided  that  Merchant  Vessels  of  the  United  States  should 
enjoy  Freedom  of  Navigation  on  Paraguay  &  Parana  as  far 
as  Brazilian  Boundary.  Malloy,  UST,  1364.  (Commentary: 
MOOEE,  Int.  Arbs.,  1487,  1493;  MOOKE,  ILD,  I,  640;  KICH- 
ARDSON,  Messages  &  Papers,  V,  560,— Third  Annual  Message 
of  President  Buchanan,  Dec.  19,  1859.) 

1860 ;  Sept.  25 :  Buenos  Aires.  Law.  Constitution  of  the  Argentine 
Confederation.  Art.  26 :  "  Navigation  on  the  rivers  in  the 
interior  of  the  nation  is  free  to  All  Flags,  and  subject  to  no 
other  regulations  than  those  proclaimed  by  the  national  author- 
ity." Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions  (1909),  I,  8;  Hertslet,  COM. 
TE.,  XII,  117. 

1876 ;  Feb.  3 :  Buenos  Aires.  Treaty.  Argentine/Paraguay.  Art. 
15 :  Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation.  Cussy/Martens,  Eec. 
Man.,  Ser.  2,  II,  527.  (Commentary:  MOOEE,  Int.  Arbs., 
4783.) 

1884 ;  Oct.  16 :  Asuncion.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/Paraguay.  Arts. 
2,  4:  Eecognized  Free  Navigation  of  British  Vessels  on  Eivers 
Paraguay  &  Parana.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  75,  941;  GB.  Sess.  Papers, 
(1907),  Commercial  No.  3. 

1884;  Oct.  16:  Asuncion.  Protocol.  Great  Britain/Paraguay. 
Stipulating  that  Arts.  2  &  3  of  Treaty  of  even  date  shall  be 
construed  as  according  British  Vessels  participation  in  the 
Coasting  Trade.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  75,  942 ;  Hertslet,  COM.  TE., 
Vol.  17,  857. 

1908;  July  22:  La  Paz.  Treaty.  Bolivia/Germany.  Art.  IV: 
Bolivia  accords  the  Eight  of  Free  Navigation  to  German  Mer- 
chant Vessels.     Martens,  NEG,  Ser.  3,  IV,  284. 

1910 ;  Aug.  12 :  Eio  de  Janeiro.  Treaty.  Bolivia/Brazil.  Freedom 
of  Navigation  for  Merchant  Vessels  of  All  Nations.  Martens, 
NEG,  Ser.  3,  VII,  632. 


308  SOUTH    AMERICA 

Paraguayan  Waterways 
PAEAGUAYAN  WATERWAYS. 

See  also :    ARGENTINE  WATERWAYS ; 
Notably  the  Rivers:  PARAGUAY. 

Paraguay;  including  Affluents  Apa,  Aquidaban,  &  Fogones; 

Parana ; 

Pilcomayo ; 

Vermejo,  or  Bermejo. 
1845;   May  20:   Asuncion.     Law.    Paraguayan   Government.    Free- 
dom of  Navigation  on  National  Waterways.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol. 

45,  1312. 
1852;  July  15:  Asuncion.     Treaty.     Argentina/Paraguay.     Arts.  1- 

12:    Mutual   Liberty   of   Navigation,    including    Affluents.     GB. 

BFSP,  Vol.  42,  1256-57. 
1853;  March  4:  Asuncion.     Treaty.     France/Paraguay. 

*Great  Britain/Paraguay. 

*Paraguay/Sardinia. 

*Paragu ay/United  States. 

Freedom  of  Navigation  &  Landing  accorded  Merchant  Vessels  of 

the   Contracting   Parties.     Cussy/Martens,    Rec.    Man.,    Ser.    1, 

VII,  179,  184;  GB.  BFSP.,  Vol.  42,  19;  Vol.  44,  1091;  Hertslet, 

COM.  TR.,  IX,  602-603. 

*Separate  Conventions  signed  by  Great  Britain,  Sardinia,  & 

the  United  States  with  Paraguay. 

(NOTE : 

(1853;  June  3:  London.  British  Parliament.  Debate  in  House  of 
Lords  concerning  Navigation  of  River  Paraguay.  GB.  Parlia- 
mentary Debates,  Vol.  127,  No.  6,  1073-74.) 

1854 ;  Oct.  3 :  Asuncion.  Law.  Decree  of  the  Paraguayan  Govern- 
ment. Art.  I :  Excluding  Foreign  Vessels  of  War  from  Fluvial 
Navigation.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  45,  1312-13.  (Commentary:  J. 
Buchanan,  First  Annual  Presidential  Message  delivered  Dec. 
8,  1857,  ^RTCHARDSON,  Messages  &  Papers,  V,  449.) 


PARANA.  See  also:    ARGENTINE  WATERWAYS; 

PARAGUAY. 

1828;  Aug.  27:  Rio  de  Janeiro.     Treaty.    Brazil/United  Provinces 


SOUTH    AMEEICA  309 

Parana 

of  Kio  de  la  Plata  (or  Buenos  Aires,  or  Argentina.)  Addit. 
Article:  Keciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol. 
15,  935;  Martens,  NET,  VII,  686. 
1841 ;  Nov.  23 :  Law.  Decree  of  Congress  of  Province  of  Corrientes. 
Admitting  Merchant  Vessels  of  All  Nations  to  Fluvial  Naviga- 
tion. Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  1,  II,  321. 
(NOTE: 

(This  law  was  designed  to  interest  foreign  shipping  in  inland 
navigation  during  the   controversy  between  the  Province   of 
Corrientes  &  President  Eosas,  but  the  blockade  established  by 
Buenos  Aires  rendered  it  inoperative.) 
1845;   May   20:   Asuncion.     Law.     Paraguayan   Government.     Free- 
dom of  Navigation  on  National  Waterways.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol. 
45,  1312. 

(NOTE : 

(1849;  Nov.  24:  Buenos  Aires.  Treaty.  Argentina/Great  Britain. 
Art.  IV:  Recognition  by  Great  Britain  that  Navigation  of 
Parana  is  exclusively  National.  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  VIII, 
106;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  1,  II,  48.) 

(NOTE : 

(1850;  Aug.  31:   Buenos   Aires.     Treaty.     Argentina/France.     Art. 
VT:  Navigation  of  River  Parana  recognized  as  exclusively  Na- 
tional by  France.     Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  1,  II,  53,     (Comment- 
ary: SCHUYLER,  Am.  DipL,  319-320.) 
.  *This   Convention   was   rejected  by   the   French   National   As- 
sembly. 

(NOTE : 

(1851;  Nov.  21:  Monte  Video.  Convention.  Brazil,  Corrientes, 
Entre  Rios,  Uruguay.  Concerning  the  future  Establishment 
of  Freedom  of  Fluvial  Navigation.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  60,  383.) 

1852;  July  15:  Asuncion.  Treaty.  Argentina/Paraguay.  Art.  I: 
Boundary.  Arts.  Ill,  VII:  Conceding  Reciprocal  Freedom  of 
Navigation,  including  Affluents.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  42,  1256-57. 

1852;  Aug.  28:  Buenos  Aires.  Law.  Decree  of  the  Argentine  Con- 
federation. Granting  Free  Navigation  of  Inland  Waterways 
to  Foreign  Merchant  Vessels.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  49,  1261; 
Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  X,  44. 

1852 ;  Oct.  3 :  Buenos  Aires.  Law.  Decree  of  the  Provisional  Direc- 
tor of  Argentine  Confederation.  Declaring  Navigation  of  River 
open  tp  Merchant  Vessels  of  All  Nations.    GB.  BFSP,  Vol. 


310  SOUTH    AMEEICA 

Parana 

42,  1313.     (Commentary:  MOOKE,  ILD,  I,  640;  SCHUYLEE, 

Am.  DipL,  319.) 
1852;    Oct.     18:     Buenos    Aires.     Law.     Argentine    Confederation. 

Navigation  Regulations.     GB.   BFSP,   Vol.   42,    1314. 
1853;  March  4:  Asuncion.     Treaty.     France/Paraguay. 

*Great  Britain/Paraguay. 

*Paraguay/Sardinia. 

*Paragu ay/United  States. 

Freedom  of  Navigation   &   Landing  granted   Merchant  Vessels 

of  the  Contracting  Parties  as  far  Inland  as  the  Port  of  En- 

carnacion.     Cussy/Martens,  Rec.   Man.,   Ser.   1,  VII,   179,  184; 

GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  42,  19 ;  Vol.  44,  1091 ;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  IX, 

602. 

*Separate  Conventions  signed  by  Great  Britain,  Sardinia,  &  the 
United  States  with  Paraguay. 

(NOTE: 

(1853 ;  June  3 :  London.  British  Parliament.  Debate  in  House  of 
Lords  concerning  Navigation  of  River  Parana.  GB.  PARL. 
DEBATES,  Vol.  127,  No.  6,  1073-74.) 

1853 ;  July  10 :  San  Jose  de  Flores.  Treaty.  Argentina/France. 
Arts.  1,  2,  &  8:  Freedom  of  Navigation  accorded  to  Merchant 
Vessels  of  All  Nations.  Annuaire  des  Deux  Mondes,  (1853/ 
1854),  pg.  947;  Clercq,  RTF,  VI,  377;  Cussy/Martens,  Rec. 
Man.,  Ser.  1,  VII,  259;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  44,  1071;  Martens, 
NRG,  Ser.  2,  X,  294. 

1853;  July  10:  San  Jose  de  Flores.  Treaty.  Argentina/Great 
Britain.  Art.  I:  Confirming  the  Decree  of  the  Provisional 
Director  of  the  Argentine  Confederation,  Oct.  3,  1852,  proclaim- 
ing the  Navigation  of  the  River  Parana  freely  open  to  the 
Merchant  Vessels  of  All  Nations.  Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man., 
Ser.  1,  VII,  261;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  42,  3;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR., 
IX,  191. 

1853;  July  10:  San  Jose  de  Flores.  Treaty.  Argentina/United 
States.  Arts.  1-8:  Freedom  of  Navigation.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol. 
42,  718;  Malloy,  UST,  18-20.  (Commentary:  BONFILS,  Droit 
Int.,  pg.  335 ;  LAWRENCE,  Int.  Law,  210 ;  MOORE,  Am.  DipL, 
83-86;  PHILLIMORE,  Int.  Law,  (1879  Edit.),  I,  246;  RICH- 
ARDSON, Messages  &  Papers,  V,  212:  First  Annual  Message 
delivered  by  President  Pierce,  Dec.  3,  1853;  V,  280:  President 
Pierce  mentions  the  establishinent  of  freedom  of  navigation  in 


SOUTH    AMERICA  311 

Parana 

his  Second  Annual  Message,  Dec.  4,  1854;  SCHUYLER,  Am. 
DipL,  322-325.) 

1854 ;  Oct.  3 :  Asuncion.  Law.  Decree  of  Paraguayan  Government. 
Art.  I:  Excluding  Foreign  Vessels  of  War  from  Fluvial  Naviga- 
tion. GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  45,  1312-13.  (Commentary:  RICH- 
ARDSON, Messages  &  Papers,  V,  449:  First  Annual  Message 
delivered  by  President  Buchanan,  Dec.  8,  1857;  SCHUYLER, 
Am.  Dip!.,  327.) 

1854;  Nov.  30:  Paris.  Law.  Promulgation  by  the  French  Govern- 
ment of  the  Treaty  of  San  Jose  de  Flores,  July  10,  1853,  estab- 
lishing Freedom  of  Fluvial  Navigation.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  44, 
1071. 

1855;  Apr.  27:  Asuncion.  Treaty.  Brazil/Paraguay.  Arts.  2,  20: 
Establishing  Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation  in  Perpetuity. 
GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  49,  1195. 

1856;  March  7:  Parana.  Treaty.  Argentina/Brazil.  Arts.  14,  16: 
Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation.  Art.  19 :  Regulations  ap- 
plicable during  War.  Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  1,  VII, 
476 ;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  46,  1310-1314. 

1856;  April  6:  Rio  de  Janeiro.  Treaty.  Brazil/Paraguay.  Arts. 
2,  4:  Mutual  Liberty  of  Navigation;  specifically  excluding 
Affluents.  Art.  5 :  Exemption  from  Transit  Dues  expressly 
stipulated.  Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  1,  VII,  516-17 ;  GB. 
BFSP,  Vol.  46,  1299-1300. 

1856 ;  July  29 :  Asuncion.  Treaty.  Argentina/Paraguay.  Art.  17 : 
Navigation  recognized  as  entirely  Free  &  Common  to  Men-of- 
War  &  Merchant  Vessels  of  Both  Nations,  subject  to  appropriate 
regulations.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol,  46,  1305.  (Commentary: 
MOORE,  Int.  Arbs.,  4783.) 

1857;  Nov.  20:  Treaty.  Argentina/Brazil.  Freedom  of  Navigation. 
GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  49,  1306.  (Commentary:  BONFILS,  Droit 
Int.,  335;  MOORE,  Am.  DipL,  83,  85.) 

1858 ;  Feb.  12 :  Asuncion.  Agreement.  Brazil/Paraguay.  Protocols 
of  Conferences  concerning  Mutual  Enjoyment  of  Fluvial  Navi- 
gation.    GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  49,  1282,  1894. 

1858;  May  13:  La  Paz.  Treaty.  Bolivia/United  States.  Arts.  26 
&  27 :  Recognizing  Freedom  of  Navigation  on  the  rivers  Amazon 
and  La  Plata,  including  the  affluents;  all  river  ports,  accessible 
from  the  sea,  being  open  freely.     Malloy,  UST,  113,  122,  124. 

1859;  Feb.  4:  Asuncion.  Treaty.  Paraguay/United  States.  Art. 
II :  Stipulated  that  Merchant  Vessels  of  the  United  States  should 
enjoy  perfect  Freedom  of  Navigation   throughout  Paraguayan 


312  SOUTH    AMERICA 

Parana 

Dominion.  Malloy,  UST,  1364.  (Commentary:  MOORE,  Int. 
Arbs.,  1487,  1493;  MOORE,  ILD,  I,  640;  RICHARDSON,  Mes- 
sages &  Papers,  V,  560,-Third  Annual  Message  of  President 
Buchanan   delivered  Dec.   19,   1859.) 

1860 ;  Sept.  25 :  Buenos  Aires.  Law.  Constitution  of  the  Argentine 
Confederation,  Art.  26 :  "  Navigation  on  the  rivers  in  the  in- 
terior of  the  nation  is  free  to  All  Flags,  and  subject  to  no  other 
regulations  than  those  proclaimed  by  the  national  authority." 
Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  (1909),  I,  8;  Hertslet,  COM,  TR., 
XII,  117. 

1876;  Feb.  3:  Buenos  Aires.  Treaty.  Argentina/Paraguay.  Art, 
15 :  Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation.  Cussy/Martens,  Rec. 
Man,  Ser,  2,  11,  527.  (Commentary:  MOORE,  Int.  Arbs., 
4783.) 

1884;  Oct.  16:  Asuncion.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/Paraguay.  Arts. 
2,  4:  Recognized  Free  Navigation  by  British  Vessels  on  Rivers 
Paraguay  &  Parana.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  75,  941;  GB.  SESS. 
PAPS.,  Commercial,   (1907),  No.  3. 

1884;  Oct  16:  Asuncion.  Protocol.  Great  Britain/Paraguay. 
Stipulating  that  Arts.  2  &  3  of  Treaty  of  Even  Date  must  be 
construed  as  recognizing  the  Participation  of  British  Vessels 
in  the  Coasting  Trade  on  the  Rivers  designated.  GB.  BFSP, 
Vol.  75,  942;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  17,  857. 

PASTACA;  or  PASTAS  A;  or  PASTAZA.  See  AMAZON;  ECU- 
DOREAN  WATERWAYS;  PERUVIAN  WATERWAYS. 

PAUTE.  See  AMAZON;  ECUADOREAN  WATERWAYS;  PE- 
RUVIAN WATERWAYS. 

PEQUENA-  or  NIGRE.     See  TIGRE. 

PERUVIAN  WATERWAYS.    See  also  AMAZON, 
Notably  the  Amazonian  Tributaries : 
Caqueta;   or   Japura;   or   Ya-        Paute; 

pura;  Putumayo,  or  Iga; 

Chambira ;  or  Chambira-Yacu ;         Santiago ; 
Hullaga;  Tigre,  or  Nigre,  or  Pequena; 

Madre  de  Dios;  Ucayali; 

Maranon;  Yavari,  or  Yacarana,  or  Ya- 

Morona;  quitano,   also   written   Hya- 

Napo ;  bary. 

Pastaga,  or  Pastasa,  or  Pas- 
taza; 


SOUTH    AMEBIC  A  313 

Peruvian  Waterways 

1851 ;  July  26 :  Lima.     Treaty.     Peru/United  States. 
*See  AMAZON. 

1351;  Oct.  23:  Lima.     Treaty.     Brazil/Peru. 
*See  AMAZON. 

1852;  Aug.  30:  Rio  de  Janeiro.     Law  (Imperial  Decree).     Brazilian 
Government.     Navigation  Regulations. 
*See  AMAZON. 

1853;  Jan.  27:  La  Paz.  Decree  of  the  Bolivian  Government.  De- 
claring All  Amazonian  Affluents,  navigable  within  Bolivian 
Territory,  Free  to  the  Commerce  &  Navigation  of  All  Nations. 
GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  55,  505;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  XIII,  152;  US., 
33rd  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  House  Misc.  Doc,  No.  22,  pg.  16. 

1853 ;  Apr  15 :  Lima.  Law.  Decree  of  Peruvian  Government  es- 
tablishing Loreto  &  Nauto  as  Ports  of  Entry.  Moore,  ILD,  I, 
641. 

1854;  Jan.  4:  Lima.  Law.  Decree  of  Peruvian  Government  mod- 
ifying Law  of  April  15,  1853,  by  restricting  Navigation  to 
Brazilian  Vessels.     Moore,  ILD,  645. 

1866;  Dec.  7:  Rio  de  Janeiro.  Law  (Imperial  Decree).  Brazilian 
Government.  Opening  Navigation  of  the  Amazon  to  the  Mer- 
chant Vessels  of  All  Nations.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  58,  551 ;  Herts- 
let,  COM.  TR.,  XIII,  157. 

1867;  July  31:  Rio  de  Janeiro.  Law  (Imperial  Decree).  Brazilian 
Government.  Navigation  Regulations.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  58, 
551-567;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  XIII,  158. 

1868;  Dec.  17:  Lima.  Law.  Decree  of  Peruvian  Government  de- 
claring Navigation  of  All  Rivers  open  to  Merchant  Vessels  of 
All  Maritime  Nations.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  65,  1240;  Hertslet, 
COM.  TR.,  XIV,  432.  (Commentary:  MOORE,  ILD,  I,  645; 
WHEATON,  Elem.  Int.  Law   (Lawrence'  Edit.),  363-365.) 

1909 ;  Sept.  8 :  Rio  de  Janeiro.  Treaty.  Brazil/Peru.  Complete 
Freedom  of  Navigation  on  All  Amazonian  Affluents  navigable 
within  Peru.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  102,  199;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3, 
VI,  849,  851. 

PILCOMAYO.  See  also:    ARGENTINE  WATERWAYS; 

BOLIVIAN  WATERWAYS; 
PARAGUAYAN  WATERWAYS. 

1845;  May  20:  Asuncion.  Law.  Paraguayan  Government.  Free- 
dom of  Navigation  on  National  Waterways.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol. 
45,  1312. 

1852;  July  15:  Asuncion.     Treaty.     Argentina/Paraguay.     Arts.  1- 


314  SOUTH    AMEEICA 

Pilcomayo 

12 :  Mutual  Liberty  of  Navigation,  including  Affluents.  GB. 
BFSP,  Vol.  42,  1256-57. 

1853;  Jan.  27:  La  Paz.  Law  (Presidential  Decree).  Bolivian 
Government.  Declaring  All  Affluents  of  the  Rio  de  la  Plata, 
navigable  within  Bolivian  Territory,  Free  to  the  Commerce  & 
Navigation  of  All  Nations.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  55,  505 ;  Hertslet, 
COM.  TR,  XIII,  152;  US.,  33rd  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  House  Misc. 
Doc,  No.  22,  pg.  16. 

1853;  March  4:  Asuncion.     Treaty.     France/Paraguay. 
*Great  Britain/Paraguay. 
*Paraguay/Sardinia. 
*Paraguay/TJnited  States. 

Freedom  of  Navigation  &  Landing  accorded  Merchant  Vessels 
of  the  Contracting  Parties.  Cussy/Martens,  Eec.  Man.,  Ser. 
1,  VII,  179,  184;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  42,  19;  Vol.  44,  1091;  Herts- 
let,  COM.  TR.,  IX,  602-603. 

*Separate  Conventions  signed  by  Great  Britain,  Sardinia,  & 
the  United  States  with  Paraguay. 

1854 ;  Oct.  3 :  Asuncion.  Law.  Decree  of  Paraguayan  Government, 
Excluding  Foreign  Vessels  of  War  from  Fluvial  Navigation 
GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  45,  1312-13. 

1905;  Sept.  11:  Buenos  Aires.  Convention.  Argentina/Paraguay 
Appointing  Joint  Commission  for  Determining  Fluvial  Bound 
ary.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  98,  770. 

1908;    July    22:     La    Paz.     Treaty.     Bolivia/Germany.     Art.     IV 
Bolivia  grants  Right  of  Free  Navigation  to  German  Merchant 
Vessels.     Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  IV,  284. 

1910;  Aug.  12:  Rio  de  Janeiro.  Treaty.  Bolivia/Brazil.  Art. 
VIII:  Freedom  of  Navigation  for  Merchant  Vessels  of  All  Na- 
tions.   Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  VII,  632. 

PIRAY.     See  also  BOLIVIAN  WATERWAYS. 

1853;  Jan.  27:  La  Paz.  Law  (Presidential  Decree),  Bolivian  Gov- 
ernment. Opened  freely  to  the  Commercial  Navigation  of  All 
Nations.  GB.  BFSP.,  Vol.  55,  505;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  XIII, 
152-53. 

PLATA ;  or  RIO  DE  LA  PLATA. 

See  also:     ARGENTINE  WATERWAYS 
PARAGUAY 
PARANA 
URUGUAY. 


SOUTH    AMERICA  315 

Plata 

1828;  Aug  27:  Rio  de  Janeiro.  Treaty.  Brazil/Rio  de  la  Plata 
(Buenos  Aires,  or  Argentina).  Addit.  Article:  Reciprocal  Free- 
dom of  Navigation,  including  Tributary  Rivers.  Cussy/Hauter- 
ive  ,  RTC,  I,  part  2,  321;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  15,  935;  Martens, 
NRT,  VII,  686. 

(NOTE : 

(1849;  Nov.  24:  Buenos  Aires.  Treaty.  Argentina/Great  Britain. 
Art.  IV:  Recognition  by  Great  Britain  that  Navigation  of  Rio 
de  la  Plata  is  exclusively  National.  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  VIII, 
106;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  1,  II,  48.) 

(NOTE: 

(1850;  Aug.  31:  Buenos  Aires.  Treaty.  Argentina/France.  Art. 
VI :  Navigation  of  Rio  de  la  Plata  recognized  by  France  as  ex- 
clusively National.  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  1,  II,  53.  (Comment- 
ary: SCHUYLER,  Am.  Dipl.  319-320.) 

*The  French  National  Assembly  rejected  this  Convention. 


1851;  May  24:  Montevideo.  Declaration.  Uruguayan  Government. 
Concerning  Navigation  of  Rio  de  la  Plata  &  Affluents.  GB. 
BFSP,  Vol.  42,  1315. 


(NOTE: 

(1851;  Oct.  12:  Rio  de  Janeiro.  Treaty.  Brazil/Uruguay.  Arts. 
15-17:  Stipulating  the  Employment  of  Appropriate  Measures  to 
secure  Co-operation  of  Adjacent  Riverain  States  for  Establish- 
ing Freedom  of  Navigation.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  40,  1141-49.) 

(NOTE: 

(1851;  Oct.  12/13:  Rio  de  Janeiro.  Treaty.  Argentina/Brazil. 
Art.  14:  Agreement  to  invite  Riverain  States  to  Cooperate  in 
establishing  Free  Navigation.     Schuyler,  Am.  Dipl.,  320.) 

(NOTE: 

(1851;  Nov.  21:  Monte  Video.  Convention.  Brazil,  Corrientes, 
Entre  Rios,  Uruguay.  Art.  14:  Concerning  the  future  Estab- 
lishment of  unrestricted  Navigation  of  the  Rio  de  la  Plata  & 
Tributary  Rivers.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  60,  383.) 


1852 ;  Aug.  28 :  Buenos  Aires.  Law.  Decree  of  the  Argentine  Con- 
federation. Granting  Free  Navigation  to  Foreign  Merchant 
Vessels.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  49,  1261;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  X, 
44. 

1852 ;  Oct.  3 :  Buenos  Aires.  Law.  Proclamation  of  the  Provisional 
Director  in  conformity  with  the  Decree  of  the  Argentine  Con- 
federation, Aug.  28,  1852,  declaring  Navigation  of  River  open 


316  SOUTH    AMERICA 

Plata 

to  Merchant  Vessels  of  All  Nations.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  42,  1313. 
(Commentary:  MOOKE,  ILD,  I,  640;  SCHUYLER,  Am.  Dipl., 
319.) 

1853;  March  4:  Asuncion.  Treaty.  (For  Full  Citation,  See 
PARANA.) 

*France/Paraguay. 
*Great  Britain/Paraguay. 
*Paraguay/Sardinia. 
*Paragu  ay /United  States. 
(*France,  Great  Britain,  Sardinia,  &  the  United  States  signed 
Separate  Conventions  with  Paraguay.) 

1853;  July  10:  San  Jose  de  Flores.  Treaty.  Argentina/France. 
Arts.  1,  2  &  8:  Freedom  of  Navigation  granted  to  Merchant 
Vessels  of  All  Nations.  Annuaire  des  Deux  Mondes,  (1853/ 
1854),  pg.  947;  Clercq,  RTF,  VT,  377;  Cussy/Martens,  Rec. 
Man.,  Ser.  1,  VII,  259;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  44,  1071;  Martens, 
NRG,  Ser.  2,  X,  294. 

1853;  July  10:  San  Jose  de  Flores.  Treaty.  Argentina/Great 
Britain.  Art.  I:  Confirming  the  Decree  of  the  Provisional 
Director  of  the  Argentine  Confederation,  Oct.  3,  1852,  proclaim- 
ing the  Navigation  of  the  Rio  de  la  Plata  freely  open  to  the 
Merchant  Vessels  of  All  Nations.  Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man., 
Ser.  1,  VII,  261;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  42,  3;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR., 
IX,  191. 

1853;  July  10:  San  Jose  de  Flores.  Treaty.  Argentina/United 
States.  Arts.  1-8:  Freedom  of  Navigation.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol. 
42,  718;  Malloy,  UST,  18-20.     (Commentary:  See  PARANA.) 

1856;  March  7:  Parana.  Treaty.  Argentina/Brazil.  Arts,  14,  16: 
Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation.  Art.  19 :  Special  Regula- 
tions applicable  during  War.  Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser. 
1,  VII,  476;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  46,  1310-1314. 

1856;  July  29:  Asuncion.  Treaty.  Argentina/Paraguay.  Art.  17  r 
Navigation  recognized  as  entirely  Free  &  Common  to  Men-of- 
War  &  Merchant  Vessels  of  Both  Nations  subject  only  to  Ap- 
propriate Regulations.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  46,  1305. 

1857;  Nov.  20:  Treaty.  Argentina/Brazil.  Freedom  of  Naviga- 
tion.    GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  49,  1306. 

1858;  May  13:  La  Paz.  Treaty.  Bolivia/United  States.  Art.  26: 
"  In  accordance  with  fixed  principles  of  International  Law, 
Bolivia  regards  the  rivers  Amazon  and  La  Plata  as  highways 
or  channels  opened  by  nature  for  the  commerce  of  all  nations," 
Malloy,  UST,  113,  122. 


SOUTH    AMERICA  3lT 

Plata 

1860 ;  Sept.  25 :  Buenos  Aires.  Law.  Constitution  of  the  Argentine 
Confederation.  Art.  26 :  "  Navigation  on  the  rivers  in  the  in- 
terior of  the  nation  is  free  to  All  Flags,  and  subject  to  no  other 
regulations  than  those  proclaimed  by  national  authority."  Dodd, 
Modern  Constitutions,  (1909),  I,  8;  Hertslet,  COM.  TK,  XII, 
117. 

1876 ;  Feb.  3 :  Buenos  Aires.  Treaty.  Argentina/Paraguay.  Art. 
15 :  Eeciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation.  Cussy /Martens,  Rec. 
Man.,  Ser.  2,  II,  527.  (Commentary:  MOORE,  Int.  Arbs., 
4783.) 

1885;  July  17:  Vienna.  Treaty.  Argentine  Republic/Norway  & 
Sweden.  Art.  II:  Navigation  of  River  &  Inland  Waterways. 
NORWAY,  Treaties,  pg.  87. 

1888;  Aug.  M:  Montevideo.  Convention.  Argentina/Uruguay. 
Regulating  Pilotage  in  Waters  of  Rio  de  la  Plata.  Martens, 
NRG,  Ser.  3,  II,  795. 

1909 ;  Jan.  5 :  Montevideo,  Agreement.  Joint  Declaration  by  the 
Governments  of  Argentina  &  Uruguay.  Concerning  Free  Navi- 
gation of  Rio  de  la  Plata.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  103,  357. 

1910 ;  Jan.  5 :  Montevideo.  Protocol.  Argentina/Uruguay.  Sect. 
3 :  "The  navigation  &  use  of  the  Waters  of  the  Rio  de  la  Plata 
will  continue  without  alteration  as  up  to  the  present.  .  .  ." 
Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  VI,  876. 

PUTUMAYO;  or  ICA.  See  also:    AMAZON; 

COLOMBIAN  WATERWAYS; 
PERUVIAN  WATERWAYS. 

1906;  July  6;  Lima.  Agreement.  Colombia/Peru.  Art.  Ill:  Re- 
ciprocal Freedom  of  Commercial  Navigation  on  Putumayo  & 
Affluents.     Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  VI,  635. 

1907;  Apr.  24:  Bogota.  Agreement.  Brazil/Colombia.  Reciprocal 
Freedom  of  Navigation,  including  Privilege  of  proceeding  with 
War- Vessels  in  Waters  of  Other  Power.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  100, 
809;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  I,  789. 

RIO  GRANDE ;  or  BERME JO.     See  VERMEJO. 

SALADO.     See  ARGENTINE  WATERWAYS. 

SAMA 

1883;  Oct.  20:  Lima.  Treaty.  Chile/Peru.  Art.  II:  Demarcation 
of  Fluvial  Boundary.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  74,  349-350,  352. 


318  SOUTH    AMERICA 

San  Francisco 

SAN  FRANCISCO 

1866;  Dec.  7:  Rio  de  Janeiro.  Law  (Imperial  Decree).  Brazilian 
Government.  Opening  Navigation  to  the  Merchant  Vessels 
of  All  Nations.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  58,  551 ;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR., 
XIII,  157. 

1867;  July  31:  Rio  de  Janeiro.  Law  (Imperial  Decree).  Brazilian 
Government.  Navigation  Regulations;  enumerating  tributaries 
open  to  commerce  &  merchant-vessels.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  58,  551- 
567;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  XIII,  158. 

SAN  GONZALO 

1909;  Oct.  30:  Rio  de  Janeiro.     Treaty.     Brazil/Uruguay.     Art.  11, 

VI :  Freedom  of  Navigation  granted  to  Uruguayan  Vessels.    GB. 

BFSP,  Vol.  102,  204;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  VI,  858. 

SAN  MIGUEL;  or  AGUARICO.    See  AMAZON;  COLOMBIAN 
WATERWAYS ;  PERUVIAN  WATERWAYS. 

SAN  PEDRO ;  or  RIO  GRANDE  DE  SAN  PEDRO 

1909;    Oct.    30:    Rio    de   Janeiro.     Treaty.     Brazil/Uruguay.     Arts. 

II,  VI:  Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation.     GB.   BFSP,  Vol. 

102,  204;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  VI,  858. 

SANTA  CRUZ.    See  ARGENTINA  WATERWAYS. 

SANTIAGO.    See   AMAZON;   ECUADOREAN   WATERWAYS; 

PERUVIAN  WATERWAYS. 

SAUCES;  or  NEGRO.    See  ARGENTINE  WATERWAYS. 

SOGAMOSO;  or  CHICAMOCHA.    See  COLOMBIAN  WATER- 
WAYS. 

TAKUTU 

1904;  June  6:  Rome.  Decision.  Arbitral  Award  rendered  by  King 
of  Italy.  Establishing  Boundary  between  Brazil  &  British 
Guiana  in  Thalweg  &  stipulating  further,  that  Both  Nations 
should  enjoy  Freedom  of  Navigation.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  99,  930. 

TAPAJOZ 

1866;  Dec.  7:  Rio  de  Janeiro.  Law  (Imperial  Decree).  Brazilian 
Government.  Opening  Navigation  to  the  Merchant  Vessels  of 
all  Nations.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  58,  551;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR., 
XIII,  157. 


SOUTH    AMERICA  319 

Tapajoz 

1867;  July  31:  Rio  de  Janeiro.  Law  (Imperial  Decree).  Brazilian 
Government.  Navigation  Regulations.  GB,  BFSP,  Vol.  58, 
551-567;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  XIII,  158. 

TIGRE;  or  NIGRE;  or  PEQUENA.     See  AMAZON;  ECUADOR- 
EAN  WATERWAYS;  PERUVIAN  WATERWAYS. 

TOCANTINS 

1866;  Dec.  7:  Rio  de  Janeiro.     Law   (Imperial  Decree).     Brazilian 

Government.     Opening  Navigation  to  the  Merchant  Vessels  of 

All  Nations.     GB.   BFSP,  Vol.  58,  551;  Hertslet,   COM.   TR., 

XIII,  157. 
1867;  July  31:  Rio  de  Janeiro,     Law  (Imperial  Decree).     Brazilian 

Government.     Navigation    Regulations.     GB.    BFSP,    Vol.    58, 

551-567;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  XIII,  158. 

UCAYALI.    See  AMAZON;  PERUVIAN  WATERWAYS. 

URUGUAY  See  also:    ARGENTINE  WATERWAYS; 

PLATA  (RIO  DE  LA  PLATA). 

1828;  Aug.  27:  Rio  de  Janeiro.  Treaty.  Brazil/United  Provinces 
of  Rio  de  la  Plata  (Buenos  Aires,  or  Argentina).  Addit.  Ar- 
ticle: Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation.  Cussy/Hauterive, 
RTC,  I,  Part  2,  321;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  15,  935;  Martens,  NRT, 
VII,  686. 

1851;  May  24:  Montevideo.  Declaration.  Uruguayan  Government. 
Concerning  Navigation  of  Rio  de  la  Plata  &  Tributary  Rivers. 
GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  42,  1315. 

1851;  Oct.  12:  Rio  de  Janeiro.  Treaty.  Brazil/Uruguay.  Art.  14: 
Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  40, 
1141-49.     (Commentary:     SCHUYLER,  Am.  Dipl.,  320.) 


(NOTE : 

(1851;  Oct.  12/13:  Rio  de  Janeiro.  Treaty.  Argentina/Brazil. 
Agreement  to  invite  Riverain  States  to  Cooperate  in  establish- 
ing Unrestricted  Navigation.     Schuyler,  Am.  Dipl.,  320.) 

(NOTE: 

(1851;  Nov.  21:  Montevideo.  Convention.  Brazil,  Corrientes,  En- 
tre  Rios,  Uruguay.  Concerning  Future  Establishment  of  Free 
Navigation  on  Rio  de  la  Plata  &  Tributary  Waters.  GB.  BFSP, 
Vol.  60,  383.) 


1852 ;  July  15  :  Asuncion.     Treaty.     Argentina/Paraguay.     Art.  Ill : 


320  SOUTH    AMEEICA 

Uruguay 

Free  Navigation  accorded  to  Paraguayan  Postal  Boats  &  Escort- 
ing Vessels  as  far  as  San  Borja  on  the  River  Uruguay.  GB. 
BFSP,  Vol.  42,  1256-57. 

1852 ;  Aug.  28 :  Buenos  Aires.  Law.  Decree  of  the  Argentine  Con- 
federation. Granting  Free  Navigation  to  Foreign  Merchant 
Vessels.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  49,  1261;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  X, 
44. 

1852 ;  Oct.  3 :  Buenos  Aires.  Law,  Proclamation  of  the  Provisional 
Director  in  conformity  with  the  Decree  of  Aug.  28,  1852,  de- 
claring Navigation  of  the  River  open  to  Merchant  Vessels  of 
All  Nations.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  42,  1313.  (Commentary: 
MOORE,  ILD,  I,  640.) 

1852;  Oct.  18:  Buenos  Aires.  Law.  Argentine  Confederation. 
Navigation  Regulations.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  42,  1314. 

1853;  July  10:  San  Jose  de  Flores.  Treaty.  Argentina/France. 
Arts.  1,  2,  &  8:  Freedom  of  Navigation  granted  to  Merchant 
Vessels  of  All  Nations  throughout  Argentine  Dominion.  An- 
nuaire  des  Deux  Mondes,  (1853/1854),  pg.  947;  Clercq,  RTF, 
VT,  377;  Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  1,  VII,  259;  GB. 
BFSP,  Vol.  44,  1071;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  2,  X,  294. 

1853 ;  July  10 :  San  Jose  de  Flores.  Treaty.  Argentina/Great  Brit- 
ain. Art.  I:  Confirming  Decree  of  the  Provisional  Director  of 
the  Argentine  Confederation,  Oct.  3,  1852,  proclaiming  the  Nav- 
igation of  the  Uruguay  freely  open  to  the  Merchant  Vessels  of 
All  Nations.  Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser.  1,  VII,  261;  GB. 
BFSP,  Vol.  42,  3;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  IX,  191. 

1853;  July  10:  San  Jose  de  Flores.  Treaty.  Argentina/United 
States.  Arts.  1-8:  Freedom  of  Navigation.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol. 
42,  718;  Malloy,  UST,  18-20.     (Commentary:     See  PARANA.) 

1853;  Oct.  10:  Montevideo.  Law.  Decree  of  Uruguayan  Govern- 
ment. Opening  All  Inland  Waterways  freely  to  the  Commercial 
Navigation  of  Foreign  Vessels.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  70,  364;  Hert- 
slet, COM.  TR.,  XV,  1097. 

1854;  June  2:  Montevideo.  Law.  Decree  of  Uruguayan  Govern- 
ment. Regulations  governing  Participation  hy  Foreign  Mer- 
chant Vessels  in  Inland  Navigation.  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol. 
14,  690. 

1856;  March  7:  Parana.  Treaty.  Argentina/Brazil.  Arts.  14,  16: 
Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation.  Art.  19 :  Special  Regula- 
tions applicable  during  War.  Cussy/Martens,  Rec.  Man.,  Ser. 
1,  VII,  476;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  46,  1310-1314. 

1857;   Nov.  20:   Treaty.     Argentina/Brazil.     Mutual   Enjoyment   of 


SOUTH    AMERICA  321 

Uruguay 
Fluvial  Navigation.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  49,  1306.  (Commentary: 
BONFILS,  Droit  Int.,  335.) 

1860 ;  Sept.  25 :  Buenos  Aires.  Law.  Constitution  of  the  Argentine 
Confederation.  Art.  26 :  "  Navigation  on  the  rivers  in  the 
interior  of  the  nation  is  free  to  All  Flags,  and  subject  to  no 
other  regulations  than  those  proclaimed  by  national  authority." 
Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  (1909),  I,  8;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR., 
XII,  117. 

1885;  July  17:  Vienna.  Treaty.  Argentina/Norway  &  Sweden. 
Art.  II:  Freedom  of  Inland  Navigation.  NORWAY,  Treaties, 
pg.  87. 

VALENCIA  LAKE 

1869;   May   14:    Caracas.     Law.     Venezuelan    Government. 
See  VENEZUELAN  WATERWAYS. 

1869 ;  July  1 :  Caracas.     Law.     Presidential  Proclamation. 

VENEZUELAN  WATERWAYS 

Notahly:  MARACAIBO  LAKE  &  TRIBUTARY  WATERS;  ORI- 
NOCO RIVER  &  AFFLUENTS ;  VALENCIA  LAKE. 

1869;  May  14:  Caracas.  Law.  Congress  of  the  United  States  of 
Venezuela.  Art.  I :  "  From  the  publication  of  this  decree  the 
navigation  of  the  river  Orinoco  and  its  affluents,  the  Lake  of 
Valencia,  the  Lake  of  Maracaibo  and  its  tributaries  in  all  the 
extension  of  Venezuela,  is  thrown  open  to  merchant  steam  ves- 
sels under  foreign  flags  that  undertake  the  inland  navigation,  in 
conformity  with  the  regulations  on  the  matter;  the  respective 
States  being  subject  to  the  restrictions  established  by  Base  Four 
of  the  Thirteenth  Article  of  the  Constitution,  Section  I." 
MOORE,  Int.  Arbs.,  II,  1696-97. 

1896 ;  July  1 :  Caracas.  Law.  Presidential  Proclamation  in  conform- 
ity with  the  Decree  of  May  14,  1869.  Arts.  1-6:  Regulating 
Navigation  by  Foreign  Merchant  Vessels  upon  the  National  In- 
land Waterways  as  designated.    MOORE,  Int.  Arbs.,  II,  1697-98. 

VERME  JO ;  or  BERME  JO ;  or  RIO  GRANDE.  See  also  ARGEN- 
TINE WATERWAYS. 

1852;  July  15:  Asuncion.  Treaty.  Argentina/Paraguay.  Art.  V: 
"  The  navigation  of  the  Bermejo  is  perfectly  common  to  the  two 
states."     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  42,  1256-57. 

1853;  Jan.  27:  La  Paz.  Law  (Presidential  Decree).  Bolivian  Gov- 
ernment. Declaring  the  Navigation  Free  to  the  Merchant  Ves- 
sels of  All  Nations.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  55,  505 ;  Hertslet,  COM. 
TR.,  XIII,  152-153. 


323  SOUTH    AMERICA 

Vermejo 

1856;  July  29:  Asuncion.  Treaty.  Argentina/Faraway.  Art.  17: 
Specifically  Kecognized  Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation  on 
the  Vermejo.  GB.  BFSF,  Vol.  46,  1305.  (Commentary: 
MOORE,  Int.  Arbs.,  4783.) 

WAUFES;  or  UAFES.    See  COLOMBIAN  WATERWAYS. 

YAFURA;  or  CAQUETA;  or  JAFURA. 

See  also:    AMAZON; 
COLOMBIAN  WATERWAYS; 
FERUVIAN  WATERWAYS. 
1908 ;  Apr.  15 :  Lima.     Convention.     Brazil/Feru.     Arts.  1-3 :     Mu- 
tual Enjoyment  of  Fluvial  Navigation.     Art.  Ill :     "  In  navi- 
gating both  up  as  well  as  down  the  stream  of  the  Yapura,  Bra- 
zilian and  Feruvian  vessels  shall  be  under  the  obligation  of  call- 
ing at  the  fiscal  or  military  posts  which  either  country  possesses 
or  may  establish  on  that  river."     GB.  BFSF,  Vol.  102,  912. 

YAVARI;  or  HYABARY;  or  YACARANA;  or  YAQUITANO. 
See  AMAZON;  FERUVIAN  WATERWAYS. 


AFRICA 

ABY  LAGOON 

1889;    Aug.    10:    Faris.     Agreement.     France/Great    Britain.     Art. 

III,  sect.  2:  Establishing  Freedom  of  Navigation  for  Vessels 
of  Both  Nations.  Ilertslet,  Africa,  No.  226,  731 ;  Hertslet,  COM. 
TR.,  Vol.  18,  420-421. 

ADDO 

1889 ;  Aug.  10 :  Faris.  Agreement.  France/Great  Britain.  Art.  IV, 
sect.  1 :  Establishing  Freedom  of  Navigation  for  Vessels  of 
Both  Nations.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  226,  731;  Hertslet,  COM. 
TR.,  Vol.  18,  420-421. 

AJARRA;  or  ADJARRA 

1889;    Aug.    10:    Faris.     Agreement.     France/Great    Britain.     Art. 

IV,  sect.  1:  Establishing  Freedom  of  Navigation  for  Vessels 
of  Both  Nations.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  226,  732 ;  Hertslet,  COM. 
TR.,  Vol.  18,  421. 


AFRICA  323 

Aka 
AKA 

1890;  July  1:  Berlin.  Agreement.  Germany/Great  Britain.  Art. 
IV,  sect.  1:  Thalweg  Boundary.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No  270 
900,  903;  Hertslet,  COM.  TE.,  Vol.  18,  469. 

AKOBO 

1902;  May  15:  Adis  Ababa.  Treaty.  Ethiopia/Great  Britain.  Art. 
I:  Demarcation  of  International  Boundary  in  Thalweg.  Hert- 
slet, Africa,  No.  100,  431. 

AKWAYAFE;  or  AKPAKOEUM;  or  AKWAJAFE 
1913 ;  Mar.  11 :  London.  Agreement.  Germany/Great  Britain.  Art. 
18,  sect.  1:  Thalweg  Boundary.  Art.  23:  Reciprocal  Free- 
dom of  Navigation  subject  to  no  Differential  Treatment  whatso- 
ever. Art.  29:  Equal  Enjoyment  of  Navigation  &  Fishing. 
Great  Britain,  Treaty  Series,  (1913),  No.  13. 

ALBERT  NYANZA 

1885;  Feb.  26 :  Berlin.  Final  Act  of  the  Congress.  Art.  II:  Recog- 
nizing Freedom  of  Navigation  for  All  Flags.  Chap.  IV;  Arts. 
13-25:  Act  of  Navigation  for  the  Congo  System.  Art.  VIII: 
Right  of  Surveillance  vested  in  the  International  Navigation 
Commission  of  the  Congo,  as  Instituted  by  Art.  17  of  the  Gen- 
eral Act.     Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  128,  472,  474-481. 

1906;  May  9:  London.  Agreement.  Great  Britain/Independent 
State  of  the  Congo.  Art.  Ill:  Forbidding  the  Erection  of 
Works  on  Tributary  Waters  diminishing  Volume  of  Water  en- 
tering the  Lake.    Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  165,  585. 

ANEBIR;  or  ANJIBIR 

1913;  Mar.  11:  London.  Agreement.  Germany/Great  Britain. 
Sect.  I,  Art.  12:  Thalweg  Boundary.  Art.  29:  Equal  Enjoy- 
ment of  Navigation  &  Fishing.  Great  Britain,  Treaty  Series 
(1913),  No.  13. 

ANYALO ;  or  ANUBE 

1913;  Mar.  11:  London.  Agreement.  Germany/Great  Britain. 
Sect.  I,  Art.  10:  Thalweg  Boundary.  Art.  29:  Equal  Enjoy- 
ment of  Navigation  &  Fishing  GB.  Treaty  Series,  (1913),  No 
13. 

AROANGWA;  or  LOANGWA.    See  LOANGWA. 


324  AFKICA 

Aruwimi 

AHUWIMI.    See  also  CONGO. 

1885;  Feb.  26:  Berlin.  Final  Act  of  the  Congress.  Art.  II:  Es- 
tablishing Freedom  of  Navigation  for  All  Flags.  Art.  VIII: 
Right  of  Surveillance  vested  in  the  International  Navigation 
Conunission.  Chap.  IV;  Arts.  13-25:  Navigation  Act  for 
Congo  System.     Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  128,  472,  474-481. 

ATBAEA 

1891 ;  Apr.  15  :  Eome.  Protocol.  Great  Britain/Italy.  Art.  I :  De- 
marcation of  Fluvial  Boundary.  Art.  Ill:  Regulating  Diver- 
sion of  Waters;  Irrigation  Works  must  not  diminish  Customary 
Flow  of  the  Nile.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  289,  949;  Hertslet, 
COM,  TR,  Vol.  19,  688. 

AWA;  or  AUA 

1913;  Mar.  11:  London.  Agreement.  Germany/Great  Britain. 
Sect.  I,  Art.  16:  Boundary  in  Thalweg.  Art.  29:  Equal  En- 
joyment of  Navigation  &  Fishing.  GB.  Treaty  Series,  (1913), 
No.  13. 

BARO;  or  GAMBELLA 

1902 ;  May  15 :  Adis  Ababa.  Treaty.  Ethiopia/Great  Britain.  Art. 
I:     Thalweg  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  100,  431. 

BENUE;  or  CHADDA.     See  also  NIGER. 

1885;  Feb.  26:     Berlin.     Final  Act  of  the  Congress.     Chap.  V;  Arts. 

26-33 :     Act  of  Navigation  for  Niger  System.     Hertslet,  Africa, 

No.  128,  481-484. 

(NOTE : 

(1885 ;  June  5 :  London.  Notification.  British  Government.  Pro- 
claiming the  Institution  of  a  British  Protectorate  comprising 
Both  Banks  of  the  River  Benue  from  its  confluence  with  the 
Niger  up  to  &  including  Ibi.     Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  8,  123. 

1886 ;  July  27/ Aug.  2 :  Supplementary  Agreement.  Germany/Great 
Britain.  Recognizing  the  Benue  as  International  Boundary. 
Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  263,  880^881. 

1890 ;  July  1 :  Berlin.  Agreement.  Germany/Great  Britain.  Arts. 
5,  8:  Granting  Freedom  of  Fluvial  Transit.  Hertslet,  Africa, 
No.  270,  902-903;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  18,  459. 

1893 ;  Nov.  15 :  Berlin.  Agreement.  Germany/Great  Britain.  Arts. 
I  &  II :  Demarcation  of  Boundary.  Art.  VI :  Mutual  Freedom 
of  Navigation  Recognized.  Hertslet,  Africa,  pg.  915;  Hertslet, 
COM.  TR.,  Vol.  19,  253,  254. 


AFRICA  325 

Benue 

1894 ;  Mar.  15 :  Berlin.  Convention.  France/Germany.  Art.  Ill : 
Mutual  Agreement  to  observe  the  Dispositions  under  Articles 
26-33  of  the  Treaty  of  Berlin,  Feb.  26,  1885,  concerning  Universal 
Freedom  of  Navigation  &  Commerce.  Am.  Jour.  Int.  Law,  VI, 
Suppl.,  pg.  97;  MARTENS,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  I,  603. 

1908;  Apr.  18:  Berlin.  Convention.  France/Germany.  Art.  II: 
Obligates  Germany  to  respect  the  Provisions  of  the  Treaty  of 
Berlin,  Feb.  26,  1885,  governing  Freedom  of  Navigation  &  Com- 
merce. Am.  Jour.  Int.  Law,  VI,  Suppl.,  105;  Hertslet,  Africa, 
No.  379,  1215-1222;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  I,  612. 

1911 ;  Nov.  4 :  Berlin.  Convention.  France/Germany.  Arts.  12-13  : 
Mutual  Enjoyment  of  Navigation.  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  V, 
643,  658. 

BEWA;  or  BIWA 

1903;  June  25:  Mano-Sulija.     Agreement.     Great  Britain  &  Liberia. 

Established    International   Boundary    along    Left   Bank    to    the 

Sea-Coast.     Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  352,  1136. 

BIJA;  or  IMBA.     See  1MB  A. 

BLACK  VOLTA 

1898;  June  14:  Paris.  Agreement.  France/Great  Britain.  Art.  I: 
Thalweg  Boundary.  Art.  IX:  Specifically  provides  for  Reci- 
procal Freedom  of  Riverain  Navigation  &  Commerce  during  a 
Thirty  Year  Period  from  date  of  ratifying  the  Agreement. 
Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  241,  785-786. 

BLUE  NILE 

1891;  Mar,   24:   Rome.     Agreement.     Great  Britain/Italy.     Art.   1: 

Demarcation  of  Fluvial  Boundary.     Hertslet,  COM.   TR.,  Vol. 

19,  686. 


BOUNDARY  WATERWAYS 

FRANCE/GERMANY 

1911;  Nov.  4:  Berlin.  Convention.  France/Germany.  Art.  10: 
Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation  on  All  Boundary  Waterways. 
Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  V,  643,  657-58. 

FRANCE/LIBERIA 

1907;  Sept.  18:  Paris.  Convention.  France/Liberia.  Art.  Ill: 
Equal  Enjoyment  of  Navigation  on  All  Boundary  Waterways. 
Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  353,  1141;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  III,  1004. 


326  AFEICA 

Boundary  Waterways 

GERMANY/GREAT  BRITAIN.    In  the  Yola-Lake  Chad  District. 

1906;  March  19:  London.  Treaty.  Germany/Great  Britain. 
Wherever  Boundary  is  formed  by  Rivers,  the  Inhabitants  on 
Both  Banks  shall  enjoy  Equal  Rights  of  Navigation  &  Fishing. 
Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  II,  691. 

BUSI 

1891;  June  11:  Lisbon.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/Portugal.  Fluvial 
Transit  of  Persons  &  Goods  accorded  Vessels  of  All  Nations. 
(Arts.  12-13.)  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  310,  1022;  Hertslet,  COM. 
TR.,  Vol.  19,  781. 

CAMBOMPO 

1893;  May  31/June  5:  London.  Agreement.  Great  Britain/Portu- 
gal. Art.  V:  Provisional  International  Boundary  established 
in  Thalweg.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  311,  1028.  (NOTE:  This 
territory  came  wholly  under  British  dominion  in  1905.) 

CAJET 

1886;  May  12:  Paris.  Convention.  France/Portugal  Art.  I: 
Thalweg  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  208,  674. 

CAMPO 

1885;  Dec.  24:  Agreement.  France/Germany.  Art.  I:  Recogniz- 
ing Freedom  of  Navigation  for  Vessels  of  Both  Nations.  Hert- 
slet, Africa,  No.  195,  653. 

1911;  Nov.  4:  Berlin.  Convention.  France/Germany.  Art.  10: 
Mutual  Enjoyment  of  Navigation.  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  V, 
643,  657-58. 

CASSAI;  or  KASSAI.    See  KASSAL 

CAVALLY 

1892;  Dec.  8:  Agreement.  France/Liberia.  Art.  II:  Mutual  En- 
joyment of  Navigation.     Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  351,  1134. 

1907;  Sept.  18:  Paris.  Convention.  France/Liberia.  Art.  Ill: 
Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  353, 
1140-41;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  III,  1004. 

CHAD  LAKE 

1890;  July  1:  Berlin.  Agreement.  Germany/Great  Britain.  Arts. 
5,  8 :  Equal  Opportunity  accorded  Vessels  of  Both  Nations  to 
participate  in  Navigation.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  270,  902-903; 
Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  18,  459. 


AFRICA  327 

Chad  Lake 

1893 ;  Nov.  15 :  Berlin.  Agreement.  Germany/Great  Britain.  Art. 
II:  Deliminating  International  Boundary.  Art.  VI:  Mutual 
Freedom  of  Navigation  Recognized.  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol. 
19,  254. 

1898;  June  14:  Paris.  Agreement.  France/Great  Britain.  Arts. 
I-IV:  International  Boundary  Established.  Art.  IX:  Reci- 
procal Freedom  of  Navigation  &  Commerce  during  a  Thirty  Year 
Period  from  date  of  Ratification.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  241, 
785-88. 

1904 ;  April  8 :  London.  Treaty.  France/Great  Britain.  Art.  VIII : 
Designates  Line  of  International  Boundary  in  the  Lake.  Hert- 
slet, Africa,  No.  251,  818-19. 

1906;  May  29:  London.  Treaty.  France/Great  Britain.  Art.  II: 
Guaranteeing  Free  Navigation  on  the  Lake  to  British  &  French 
Nationals  &  Protegees.     Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  256,  845. 

1908;  Apr.  18:  Berlin.  Convention.  France/Germany.  Art.  IV: 
Mutual  Enjoyment  of  Navigation  &  the  Fisheries  in  the  Lake. 
Am.  Jour.  Int.  Law,  VI,  Suppl.,  105;  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  379, 
1215-1222;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  I,  612. 

1911;  Nov.  4:  Berlin.  Convention.  France/Germany.  Arts.  12-13: 
Reciprocal  Enjoyment  of  Navigation.  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3, 
V,  643,  657-58. 

CHADDA;  or  BENUE.    See  BENUE. 

CHARI;  or  SHARI.     See  SHARI. 

CHILOANGO 

1885 ;  Feb.  5 :  Paris.  Convention.  France/International  Association 
of  the  Congo.  Art.  Ill:  Established  Boundary  in  Thalweg 
from  Ocean  to  Northernmost  Source.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  152, 
564. 

1885 ;  Aug.  1 :  Brussels.  Notification.  Circular  Note  issued  by  the 
Administrator-General  of  the  Department  of  Foreign  Affairs  of 
the  Independent  State  of  the  Congo.  Declaring  Neutrality  & 
Indicating  Territorial  Limits;  Thalweg  of  Chiloango  forming 
portion  of  International  Boundary.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  145, 
552. 

1886 ;  May  12 :  Paris.  Convention.  France/Portugal.  Arts.  I-III : 
Territorial  Rights  of  Portugal  on  Both  Banks  of  Lower  Course 
of  the  River  Recognized.  Art.  Ill:  Thalweg  established  as 
Boundary  between  Congo  Free  State  &  Portugal.  Hertslet,  Af- 
rica, No.  208,  673-675. 


328  AFEICA 

Chilwa  Lake 

CHILWA;  or  SHIEWA  LAKE 

1893 ;  May  31/ June  5 :  London.  A^eement,  Great  Britain/Portugal. 
Art.  I:  Demarcation  of  International  Boundary.  Hertslet,  Af- 
rica, No.  311,  1027-1029. 

CHIUTA  LAKE 

1893 ;  May  31/June  5  :  London.  Agreement.  Great  Britain/Portugal. 
Art.  I:  Establishing  International  Boundary.  Hertslet,  Af- 
rica, No.  311,  1027-1029. 

CHOBE;  or  KWANDO 

1890;  July  1:  Berlin.  Agreement.  Germany/Great  Britain.  Art. 
Ill,  Sect.  2:  International  Boundary  follows  Thalweg  to  con- 
fluence with  Zambesi.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  270,  902;  Hertslet, 
COM.  TR,  Vol.  18,  459. 

Not- 


CONGO.    Including  All  Tribul 

[ary  Waterways  of  the  Syst( 

ably  : 

The  Rivers: 

Mfini; 

Aruwimi ; 

Pama; 

Kalombo,  or  Kilambo; 

Kusizi ; 

Kandcko ; 

Sanga ; 

Kassai ; 

Ubangi. 

Kwa; 

Lobai ; 

The  Lalces: 

Lomami ; 

Kivu ; 

Luapula ; 

Leopold  II; 

Lukualli ; 

Mweru ; 

Lukuga ; 

Tanganyika ; 

Lulanga ; 

Tumba,  or  Matumba. 

1885;  Feb.  26:  Berlin.  General  Act  of  the  Congress  of  Nations: 
Austria-Hungary,  Belgium,  Denmark,  France,  Germany,  Great 
Britain,  Italy,  Netherlands,  Norway,  Portugal,  Russia,  Spain, 
Sweden,  Turkey,  United  States  of  America.  Art.  I:  Desig- 
nating Boundaries  of  the  Congo  Basin.  Art.  H:  Establishing 
Freedom  of  Navigation  throughout  the  Congo  System  for  All 
Nations.  Chap.  IV,  Arts.  13-25 :  Act  of  Navigation  applicable 
to  the  Congo  &  Tributary  Waterways.  Art.  VIII:  Eight  of 
Surveillance  vested  in  the  International  Navigation  Commission 
of  the  Congo,  as  designated  in  Article  17  of  the  General  Act. 
Clercq,  RTF,  XIV,  447-454;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  76,  4;  Hertslet, 
Africa,  No.  128,  472,  474-481 ;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  17,  68 ; 


AFRICA  329 

Congo 

Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  2,  X,  414.     (Commentary:     DESPAGNET, 
Droit  Int.,  639 ;  ENGELHARDT,  Hist.  Droit  Fluv.  Conv.,  101 
HALL,  Int.  Law,  5th  Edit.,  89-92 ;  LAWRENCE,  Int.  Law,  210 
MOORE,    ILD,    I,    652;    OPPENHEIM,    Int.    Law,    I,    228 
SCHUYLER,  Am.  Dipl.,  364-366;  US.   FOR.  RELS.,   (1888), 
I,  27;  US.  SEN.  EX.  DOC,  No.  196,  pgs.  298,  300,  303,— 49th 
Cong.,  1st  Sess.;  WESTLAKE,  Int.  Law,  I,  158;  WOOLSEY, 
Intro,  to  Study  of  Int.  Law,  see.  62.     (NOTE :     Correspondence 
between  Great  Britain  &  Portugal  during  the  years  1882,  1883, 
&  1884  concerning  navigation  of  the  river  Congo.     GB.  BFSP, 
Vol.  75,  1272.) 

1887 ;  Apr.  26 :  Brussels.  Law.  Decree  of  the  Independent  State  of 
the  Congo,  concerning  Navigation.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  78,  86. 

1891;  Jan.  24:  Brussels.  Treaty.  Independent  State  of  the  Congo 
&  the  United  States  of  America.  Art.  VI:  Freedom  of  Navi- 
gation upon  All  Inland  Waterways.  Am.  Jour.  Int.  Law,  III, 
Suppl.,  pg.  65 ;  Malloy,  UST,  331. 

1908;  Apr.  18:  Berlin.  Convention.  France/Germany.  Art.  II: 
Mutual  Participation  in  Navigation  &  Commerce,  pursuant  to 
the  Joint  Navigation  Regulations  designated  in  an  earlier  sec- 
tion of  Article  11.  Am.  Jour.  Int.  Law,  VI,  Suppl.,  105-106; 
Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  379,  1215-1222;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  I, 
612. 

1911 ;  Nov.  4 :  Berlin.  Convention.  France/Germany.  Arts.  12-13  : 
Reciprocal  Enjoyment  of  Navigation.  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3, 
V,  643,  657-58. 

CROCODILE ;  Affluent  of  the  KOMATL     See  SABL 

CROSS;  or  OLD  CALABAR 

1885 ;  Apr.  25/June  16 :  Agreement.  Germany/Great  Britain.  De- 
marcation of  International  Fluvial  Boundary.  Hertslet,  Africa, 
No.  260,  868-69. 

1886 ;  July  27/ Aug.  2 :  Supplementary  Agreement.  Germany/Great 
Britain.  Concerning  Boundary  on  Cross  River.  Hertslet,  Af- 
rica, No.  263,  880-881. 

1890 ;  July  1 :  Berlin.  Agreement.  Germany/Great  Britain.  Art, 
IV:  Demarcation  of  Boundary.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  270; 
Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  18,  459. 

1893 ;  Nov.  15 :  Berlin.  Agreement.  Germany/Great  Britain.  Art. 
I:  Designating  International  Boundary.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No. 
275,  913-914;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  19,  253-54. 


330  AFBICA 

Cross 

1913;  March  11:  London,  Convention.  Germany/Great  Britain. 
Sect.  II,  Art.  I,  Par.  1 :  "  The  navigation  on  all  the  course  of 
the  Cross  River  within  Southern  Nigeria  shall  remain  open  to 
German  merchant-vessels  .  .  .  subject  to  the  same  rules  as  re- 
gards navigation  on  the  river  as  are  applicable  to  British  ves- 
sels, and  to  no  special  rules,  duties,  or  restrictions." 

Par.  2 :  "  No  import,  export,  or  transit  dues  shall  be  levied 
on  transit  traffic."  Sect.  I,  Art.  26 :  Recognition  of  Fishing 
Rights.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  106,  782;  GB.  Treaty  Series,  (1913), 
No.  13,  pg.  240. 


CUANGO;  or  KUANGO;  or  KWANGO     See  LUKUALLI. 

CUNENE;  or  KUNENE 

1886;  Dec.  30:  Lisbon.  Agreement.  Germany/Portugal.  Art.  I: 
Thalweg  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  216,  703. 

DAKKA;  DAK  A;  KULUPENE;  or  LAKKA 

1890 ;  July  1 :  Berlin.  Agreement.  Germany/Great  Britain.  Art. 
rV:  Demarcation  of  Boundary.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  270,  900, 
903 ;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  18,  459. 

1901;  Sept.  26:  Berlin.\^  .  ^  ,^  -r,  •     •         * 

1901;  Dec.  2:  London. /^°^^^^*'°^-  Germany/Great  Britam.  Art. 
I:     Thalweg  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  280,  927. 

1904 ;  June  25 :  Berlin.  Agreement.  Germany/Great  Britain.  Con- 
firming International  Boundary  established  along  Thalweg. 
Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  283,  935. 

DCHAWE;  or  SHAVOE.     See  SHAVOE. 

EDWARD  &  GEORGE  LAKE 

1885 ;  Feb.  26 :  Berlin.  General  Act  of  Congress  of  Nations.  Art. 
II:  Establishing  Freedom  of  Navigation  for  All  Flags.  Art. 
VIII:  Right  of  Surveillance  vested  in  the  International  Nav- 
igation Commission.  Chap.  IV;  Arts.  13-25:  Navigation  Reg- 
ulations.   Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  128,  472,  474-481. 

FARO 

1906;  March  19:  London.     Treaty.     Germany/Great  Britain.    Art. 


AFRICA  331 

Faro 

I:  Demarcation  of  Fluvial  Boundary,  Freedom  of  Navigation 
&  Fishing  to  be  enjoyed  equally  by  Both  Nations.  Hertslet,  Af- 
rica, No.  284,  937-38;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  II,  691. 

GAERESI. 

1912 ;  July  22/Aug.  9 :  Lisbon.  Agreement.  Great  Britain  &  Por- 
tugal. Annex  I:  Thalweg  Boundary.  GB.  Treaty  Series, 
(1912),  No.  21. 

GAMBELLA.     See  BARO. 

GAMBIA. 

1857;  March  7:  London.  Agreement.  France/Great  Britain.  Art. 
Ill :  French  Vessels  granted  Free  Access  to  the  Gambia,  subject 
to  the  same  tolls,  duties  &  regulations  as  British  Vessels.  Hert- 
slet, Africa,  No.  221,  717. 

1889;  Aug.  10:  Paris.  Agreement.  France/Great  Britain.  Art.  I, 
sects.  1  &  2:  Establishing  British  Control  over  Both  Banks  of 
the  Gambia  from  Sea-Coast  to  the  French  Frontier  at  Yarba- 
tenda.     Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  226,  729. 

1904;  April  8:  London.  Convention.  France/Great  Britain.  Art. 
V:  Establishing  Freedom  of  Navigation  based  on  the  provisions 
of  the  Congress  of  Berlin;  Feb.  26,  1885.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No. 
251,  817.     (Commentary:  OPPENHEIM,  Int.  Law,  I,  590.) 

GANALE ;  or  D JUBA.     See  JUBA. 

GONGOLA.    See  NIGER. 

GREAT  SCARCIES. 

1882;  June  28:  Paris.  Treaty.  France/Great  Britain.  Art.  I: 
Great  Britain  secures  complete  control  over  the  River;  France 
secures  like  Dominion  over  the  Mellicourie.  Hertslet,  Africa, 
No.  224. 

1889;  Aug.  10:  Paris.  Agreement.  France/Great  Britain.  Demar- 
cation of  International  Boundary.  Hertslet,  Africa.  No. 
226,  729-730. 

1895;  Jan.  22/Feb.  4:  Paris.  Agreement.  France/Great  Britain. 
Art.  I :  Specified  this  River  as  integral  part  of  Boundary  between 
French  Guinea  &  Sierra  Leone;  expressly  stipulating  that  In- 
habitants of  Both  Nations  should  enjoy  Freedom  of  Navigation. 
GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  87,  14;  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  237,  757,  763. 


332  AFEICA 

Honde 
HONDE. 

1912;  July  22/ Aug.  9:  Lisbon.  Agreement.  Great  Britain  & 
Portugal.  Annex  I:  Thalweg  Boundary,  GB.  Treaty  Series, 
(1912),  No.  21. 

IMBA;  or  BIJA. 

1913;  March  11:  London.  Agreement.  Germany/Great  Britain. 
Sect.  I,  Art.  9 :  Thalweg  Boundary.  Art.  29 :  Equal  Enjoyment 
of  Navigation  &  Fishing.     GB.  Treaty  Series,  (1913),  No.  13. 

ISANGO.     See  SEMLIKL 

JALIBA.     See  also :  NIGER. 

1885;  Feb.  26:  Berlin.     General  Act  of  Congress  of  Nations.     Chap. 

V;  Arts.  26-33:     Navigation  Eegulations.     Hertslet,  Africa,  No. 

128,  481-484. 
1893 ;  Nov.  15 :  Berlin.     Agreement.     Germany/Great  Britain.     Art. 

VI:    Mutual    Freedom    of    Navigation    Recognized.     Hertslet, 

Africa,  pg.  915 ;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  19,  253,  254. 

JIPE  LAKE. 

1890 ;  July  1 :  Berlin.     Agreement.     Germany/Great  Britain.     Art.  I 

sec.   1 :     Demarcation  of  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  270, 

902;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  18,  459. 
1892;  Oct.  27:  Taveta.     Agreement.     Germany /Great  Britain.     Re 

lating  to  International  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  272,  909 
1892 ;  Dec.   24 :   Zanzibar.     Protocol.     Germany /Great   Britain.     Es 

tablishing  Point  where  Boundary  shall  meet  the  Lake.     Herts 

let,  Africa,  No.  272,  909. 
1893 ;  July  25 :  Berlin.     Agreement.     Germany/Great  Britain.     De 

finitive  Convention  designating  International  Boundary.     Herts 

let,  Africa,  No.  274,  911. 

JORA. 

1912 ;  July  22/Aug.  9 :  Lisbon.  Agreement.  Great  Britain/Portugal 
Annex  I:  Thalweg  Boundary.     GB.  Treaty  Series,  (1912),  no.  21 

JUBA;  or  DJUBA;  or  GANALE. 

1889;  Aug.  3:  London,     Agreement.     Great  Britain/Italy.     Art.  V: 

Joint  &  Equal  Rights  of  Navigation  for  Both  Nations  recognized 

Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  331,  1090. 
1890;  July  1:  Berlin.     Agreement.     Germany/Great  Britain.     Art.  I 

Demarcation   of  Fluvial  Boundary.     Hertslet,   Africa,   No.   270. 

901 ;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  18,  459. 


AFEICA  333 

Juba 

1891;  March  24:  Eome.  Agreement.  Great  Britain/Italy.  Art.  I: 
Thalweg  Boundary.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  288,  948;  Hertslet, 
COM.  TE.,  Vol.  19,  686. 

KADUNA.     See  NIGER. 

KALOMBO;  or  KILAMBO.     See  also  CONGO. 

1885;  Feb.  26:  Berlin.  General  Act  of  the  Congress.  Universal 
Freedom  of  Navigation.     Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  128,  472,  474-481. 

1890;  July  1:  Berlin.  Agreement.  Germany/Great  Britain.  Art. 
I,  sect.  2 :  Thalweg  Boundary  from  Lake  Tanganyika.  Hertslet, 
Africa,  No.  270,  902;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  18,  459. 

1901 ;  Feb.  23 :  Berlin.  Agreement.  Germany/Great  Britain.  Sec- 
tion I :  Thalweg  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  279,  925-26. 

KAMBOMPO.     See  CAMBOMPO. 

KANDCKO.     See  also  CONGO. 

1885;   Feb.   26:   Berlin.     General   Act   of   the   Congress.     Universal 

Freedom  of  Navigation  established.     Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  128, 

472,  474-481. 
1908;     Apr.     18:     Berlin.     Convention.     France/Germany.     Mutual 

Freedom  of  Navigation  &  Commerce.     Am.  Jour.  Int.  Law,  VI, 

SuppL,  105 ;  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  379,  1215-1222 ;  Martens,  NRG, 

Ser.  3,  I,  612. 
1911;   Nov.   4:   Berlin.     Convention.     France/Germany.     Reciprocal 

Enjoyment    of    Navigation.     Martens,    NRG,    ser.    3,    V,    643, 

657-58. 

KASSAL     See  also  CONGO. 

1885;   Feb.   26:   Berlin.     General   Act   of   the    Congress.     Universal 

Freedom  of  Navigation  recognized.     Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  128, 

472,  474-481. 
1891 ;  May  25 :  Lisbon.     Treaty.     Independent  State  of  the  Congo  & 

Portugal.     Art.    I:    Thalweg   Boundary.     Hertslet,    Africa,    No. 

170,  592-93. 

KIBISH.    See  SACCHI. 
KILAMBO.     See  KALOMBO. 

KILUNGA;  or  KILANGE. 

1906;    March    19:    London.     Agreement.     Germany/Great    Britain. 


334  AFEICA 

Kilunga 

Art.  Ill:  Thalweg  Boundary;  Equal  Enjoyment  of  Navigation 
&  the  Fisheries  expressly  stipulated.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  284, 
937-38 ;  Martens,  NKG,  Ser.  3,  II,  691. 

KIVU  LAKE.  See  also :  CONGO. 

1885;  Feb.  26:  Berlin.  General  Act  of  the  Congress.  Art.  II: 
Universal  Freedom  of  Navigation.  Chap.  IV:  Arts.  13-25;  Act 
regulating  Navigation.  Art.  VIII :  Eight  of  Surveillance  vested 
in  the  International  Navigation  Commission.  Hertslet,  Africa, 
No.  128,  472,  474-481. 

KOMADUGU;  or  KOMADUGU  WAUBE;  or  KOMADUGU  YOBE. 

1904;  April  8:  London.  Convention.  France/Great  Britain.  Art. 
VII:  Subjects  of  Both  Nations  assured  of  Equal  Enjoyment  of 
Eiverain  Fisheries.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  251,  818-819.  (Com- 
mentary: OPPENHEIM,  Int.  Law,  I,  593.) 

1910:  Feb.  19:  London.  Agreement.  France/Great  Britain.  Art. 
I:  Thalweg  Boundary.     GB.  Treaty  Series,  (1912),  No.  1. 

KOMATL  See  SABL 

KUBANGO;  or  OKAVANGO;  or  TONKE. 

1886;  Dec.  30:  Lisbon.  Agreement.  Germany/Portugal.  Art.  I: 
Thalweg  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Africa,  No.   216,  703. 

KUILU  See  also:    CONGO. 

1885 ;  Feb.  26 :  Berlin.  General  Act  of  the  Congress.  Art.  II :  Uni- 
versal Freedom  of  Navigation.  Chap.  IV;  Arts.  13-25:  Act 
regulating  Navigation.  Art.  VIII:  Right  of  Surveillance  vested 
in  the  International  Navigation  Commission.  Hertslet,  Africa, 
No.  128,  472,  474-481. 

1891;  May  25:  Brussels  &  Lisbon.  Treaty.  Independent  State  of 
the  Congo  &  Portugal.  Art.  I,  sec.  1 :  Establishing  Fluvial 
Boundary.     Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  170,  593. 

KULUPENE ;  or  DAKA.  See  DAKKA. 

KULUSULO. 

1904;  June  25:  Berlin.  Agreement.  Germany/Great  Britain.  Thal- 
weg Boundary.     Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  283,  935. 

KUNENE.    SeeCUNENE. 

KWA.  See  also:  CONGO. 

1885 ;  Feb.  26 :  Berlin.     General  Act  of  the  Congress.    Art.  II :  Uni- 


AFRICA  335 

Kwa 

versal  Freedom  of  Navigation.  Chap.  IV.  Arts.  13-25:  Act 
regulating  Navigation.  Art.  VIII:  Surveillance  vested  in  the 
International  Commission.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  128,  472,  474- 
481. 

KWANDO;  or  KUANDO.     See  CHOBE. 

KWANGO;  Tributary  of  Lukualli.     See  LUKUALLI. 

LAKKA;  or  DAK  A;  or  KULUPENE.     See  DAKKA. 

LAVUA;  or  LUALABA.     See  LUAPULA. 

LEOPOLD  II  LAKE.  See  also:  CONGO. 

1885 ;  Feb.  26 :  Berlin.  General  Act  of  the  Congress.  Art.  II :  Uni- 
versal Freedom  of  Navigation.  Chap.  IV,  Arts.  13-25:  Act 
regulating  Navigation.  Art.  VIII :  Right  of  Surveillance  vested 
in  the  International  Commission  of  Navigation  instituted  by- 
Article  17  of  the  Final  Act.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  128,  472, 
474-481. 

LIMPOPO. 

1890 ;  Aug,  20 :  London.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/Portugal.  Freedom 
of   Navigation.     Martens,    NRG,    Ser.   II,   XVI,    929. 

1891;  June  11:  Lisbon.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/Portugal.  Art. 
XII:  Recognized  Universal  Freedom  of  Navigation.  Hertslet, 
Africa,  No.  310,  1022;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  19,  781. 

LOANGE;  Tributary  of  Kassai.     See  CONGO. 

LOANGWA;  or  AROANGWA. 

1893 ;  May  31/June  5 :  London.  Agreement.  Great  Britain/Portu- 
gal. Art.  I :  Establishing  International  Boundary,  Hertslet,  Af- 
rica, No,  311,  1027-1029, 

1911;  Oct,  21/Nov,  20:  London,  Agreement,  Great  Britain/Portu- 
gal, Annex  I:  Thalweg  Boundary.  GB  Treaty  Series,  (1912), 
No.  16. 

LOBAI  See  also :     CONGO. 

1885 ;  Feb.  26 :  Berlin.  General  Act  of  the  Congress.  Art.  II :  Uni 
versal  Freedom  of  Navigation.  Chap.  IV,  Arts,  13-25:  Act 
regulating  Navigation.    Art,  VIII :  Right  of  Surveillance  vested 


336  AFRICA 

Lobai 

in  the  International  Navigation  Commission.     Hertslet,  Africa, 

No.  128,  472,  474-481. 
1908;     Apr.     18.     Berlin.     Convention,     France/Germany.     Mutual 

Enjoyment  of  Fluvial  Navigation  &  Commerce.     Am.  Jour.  Int. 

Law,   VI,    Suppl.,    105;   Hertslet,    Africa,   No.    379,    1215-1222; 

Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  I,  612. 
1911;   Nov.   4:   Berlin,     Convention.     France/Germany,     Eeciprocal 

Freedom  of  Navigation,     Martens,  NRG,  Ser,  3,  V,  657-658. 

LOGONE;  or  LOGOGNE. 

1894 ;  March  15  :  Berlin.  Convention,  France/Germany,  Art,  III : 
Mutual  Agreement  to  observe  the  Dispositions  governing  Free- 
dom of  Navigation  embodied  in  Arts,  26-33  of  Treaty  of  Berlin ; 
Feb,  26,  1885,  Am,  Jour,  Int,  Law,  VI,  Suppl,,  97;  Martens, 
NRG,  Ser,  3,  I,  603, 

1908 ;  Apr,  18 :  Berlin.  Convention.  France/Germany,  Art,  II : 
Renewing  Art.  Ill  of  Treaty  of  March  15,  1894,  providing  for 
Mutual  Enjoyment  of  Fluvial  Navigation  &  Commerce.  Am. 
Jour,  Int,  Law,  VI,  Suppl,,  105 ;  Hertslet,  Africa,  No,  379,  1215- 
1222;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser,  3,  I,  612. 

1911;  Nov,  4:  Berlin,  Convention.  France/Germany.  Art.  10: 
Freedom  of  Navigation.     Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  V,  657-58. 

LOMAML     See  also  CONGO. 

1885 ;  Feb.  26 :  Berlin.  General  Act  of  the  Congress.  Art,  II :  Uni- 
versal Freedom  of  Navigation,  Chap.  IV,  Arts.  13-25;  Act 
regulating  Navigation.  Art.  VIII:  Right  of  Surveillance 
vested  in  the  International  Navigation  Commission.  Hertslet, 
Africa,  No.  128,  472,  474-481. 

LUAPTJLA;  or  LAVUA;  or  LUALABA  See  also:     CONGO. 

1885 ;  Feb.  26 :  Berlin.  General  Act  of  the  Congress.  Art.  II :  Uni- 
versal Freedom  of  Navigation.  Chap.  IV,  Arts.  13-25;  Act 
regulating  Navigation.  Art.  VIII:  Right  of  Surveillance  vested 
in  the  International  Navigation  Commission.  Hertslet,  Africa, 
No,  128,  472,  474-481. 

1894;  May  12:  Brussels.  Agreement.  Great  Britain  &  the  Inde- 
pendent State  of  the  Congo  (H.  M.  King  Leopold  11).  Art.  I, 
sec.  6 :  Demarcation  of  International  Boundaries.  Hertslet, 
Africa,  No.  163,  578-583. 

1906 ;  May  9 :  Brussels.  Agreement.  Great  Britain/Independent 
State  of  the  Congo.  Revising  stipulations  of  Agreement  of 
May  12,  1894.    Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  164,  pg.  584. 


AFKICA  337 

Lucalla 
LUCALLA;  or  LUCTJLLA. 

1885 ;  Feb.  14 :  Berlin.     Convention.     Independent  Association  of  the 

Congo    &    Portugal.     Art.    Ill :    Thalweg    Boundary.     Hertslet, 

Africa,  No.  169,  591. 
1885 ;  Aug.  1 :  Brussels.     Notification.     Circular  Note  issued  by  the 

Administrator-General  of  the  Department  of  Foreign  Affairs  for 

the    Independent    State   of   the   Congo.     Declaring   Neutrality; 

Indicating  Territorial  Limits.     Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  145,  552. 
1891 ;   May   25 :    Brussels.     Convention.     Independent    State   of   the 

Congo  &  Portugal.     Art.  II :  Demarcation  of  Fluvial  Boundary. 

Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  170,  594-595. 

LUKUALLI;  or  KWANGO  See  also:     CONGO. 

1885;  Feb.  26:  Berlin.  General  Act  of  Congress.  Art.  II:  Uni- 
versal Freedom  of  Navigation.  Chap.  IV,  Arts.  13-25 :  Act 
regulating  Navigation.  Art.  VIII :  Eight  of  Surveillance  vested 
in  the  International  Navigation  Commission.  Hertslet,  Africa, 
No.  128,  472,  474-481. 

1891 ;  May  25 :  Lisbon.  Treaty.  Independent  State  of  the  Congo 
&  Portugal.  Art.  I:  Thalweg  Boundary.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No. 
170,  593. 

LUKUGA;  A  River  connecting  Lake  Tanganyika  with  the  Upper 
Congo.  See  also:     CONGO. 

1885 ;  Feb.  26 :  Berlin.  General  Act  of  the  Congress.  Art.  II :  Uni- 
versal Freedom  of  Navigation.  Chap.  IV,  Arts.  13-25 :  Act 
regulating  Navigation.  Art.  VIII :  Eight  of  Surveillance  vested 
in  the  International  Navigation  Commission.  Hertslet,  Africa, 
No.  128,  472,  474-481. 

LULANGA  See  also :     CONGO. 

1885 ;  Feb.  26 :  Berlin.  General  Act  of  the  Congress.  Art.  II :  Uni- 
versal Freedom  of  Navigation.  Chap.  IV,  Arts.  13-25:  Act 
regulating  Navigation.  Art.  VIII :  Eight  of  Surveillance  vested 
in  the  International  Navigation  Commission.  Hertslet,  Africa, 
No.  128,  472,  474-481. 

LUNDE ;  or  LUNTE ;  or  LANDE. 

1890;  Aug.  20:  London.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/Portugal.  Mutual 
Enjoyment  of  Navigation.     Martens,  NEG,  Ser.  2,  XVI,  929. 

1891 ;  June  11 :  Lisbon.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/Portugal.  Universal 
Freedom  of  Navigation.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  310,  1022 ;  Herts- 
let,  COM.  TE.,  Vol.  19,  781. 


338  AFRICA 

Maia 

MAIA 

1911;  Jan.  21:  Monrovia.  Convention.  Great  Britain  &  Liberia. 
Art.  I:  Thalweg  adopted  as  International  Boundary.  Art.  II: 
Stipulated  that  Thalweg  should  constitute  Boundary  along  All 
Eivers  &  Streams  &  Provided  for  Eeciprocal  Freedom  of  Naviga- 
tion along  these  Waterways.     GB.  Treaty  Series,  (1911),  No.  16. 

MAIETEB 

1902;  May  15:  Adis  Ababa.  Treaty.  Ethiopia,  Great  Britain, 
Italy.  Annex,  Art.  I :  Demarcation  of  International  Boundary 
in  Thalweg.     Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  100,  433. 

MAKONA;  or  MO  A. 

1907;  Sept.  18:  Paris.  Convention.  France/Liberia.  Art.  I:  De- 
marcation of  Boundary.  Art.  Ill:  Eeciprocal  Freedom  of  Nav- 
igation. Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  353,  1140-41 ;  Martens,  NEG,  Ser. 
3,  in,  1004. 

1913;  Sept.  4:  London.  Agreement.  France/Great  Britain.  Art. 
IV:  Thalweg  Boundary.  x\rt.  VI:  Eeciprocal  Freedom  of 
Navigation  &  Fishing.  Art.  VIII :  Equal  Enjoyment  of  Fluvial 
Fisheries  for  Inhabitants  of  Both  Countries.  GB.  Treaty  Series, 
(1913),  No.  19. 

MAKUA;  Affluent  of  the  Eiver  TJbangi.     See  CONGO. 

MAKWOI. 

1911;  Jan.  21:  Monrovia.  Convention.  Great  Britain  &  Liberia. 
Art.  I:  Thalweg  adopted  as  International  Boundary.  Art.  11: 
Stipulated  that  Thalweg  should  constitute  Boundary  along  All 
Frontier  Streams  &  Eecognized  Eeciprocal  Freedom  of  Naviga- 
tion along  these  Waterways.     GB.  Treaty  Series,  (1911),  No.  16. 

MALAGAEAZI;  or  UKUMBI.     See  UGALA. 

MAMOUDIE  CANAL. 

1841;  Oct.  12:  Alexandria.  Law.  Notification  by  Viceroy  of  the 
Egyptian  Government.  Eegulating  Navigation  of  the  Canal. 
GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  29,  1195.     Hertslet,  COM.  TE.,  X,  602. 

MANOH;  or  MANO. 

1911 ;   July  25 :   Monrovia.     Convention.     Great   Britain   &   Liberia. 

Freedom  of  Navigation.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  107,  539. 
1913;   Apr.   10:   Monrovia.     Convention.     Great   Britain   &   Liberia. 

Arts.    1-9:    Eegulating    Freedom    of    Navigation;    Providing 


AFRICA  339 

Manoh 

Adequate  &  Appropriate  Facilities  for  Entry  &  Clearance  of 
Goods  shipped  by  River  Boats.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  106,  798;  GB. 
Treaty  Series,   (1913),  No.  6,  pg.  88. 

MAO  BULO;  or  MAIO  M'BULO. 

1913 ;  March  11 :  London.  Agreement.  Germany/Great  Britain. 
Sect.  I,  Art.  1 :  Thalweg  Boundary.  Art.  29 :  Equal  Enjoyment 
of  Navigation  &  Fishing.     GB.  Treaty  Series,   (1913),  No.   13. 

MAO  KALO;  or  MAIO  EA.LO. 

1913;  March  11:  London.  Agreement.  Germany/Great  Britain. 
Sect.  I,  Art.  8 :  Thalweg  Boundary.  Art.  29 :  Equal  Enjoyment 
of  Navigation  &  Fishing.     GB.  Treaty  Series,  (1913),  No.  13. 

MAO  KAM;  or  MAIO  KAM. 

1913 ;  Mar.  11 :  London.  Agreement.  Germany/Great  Britain.  Sect. 
I,  Art.  5 :  Thalweg  Boundary.  Art.  29 :  Equal  Enjoyment  of 
Navigation  &  Fishing.     GB.  Treaty  Series,  (1913),  No.  13. 

MAO  TATI;  or  MAIO  TATI. 

1913;  March  11:  London.  Agreement.  Germany/Great  Britain. 
Sect.  I,  Art.  9 :  Thalweg  Boundary.  Art.  29 :  Mutual  Enjoyment 
of  Navigation  &  Fishing.     GB.  Treaty  Series,  (1913),  No.  13. 

MAREB. 

1902 ;  May  15 :  Adis  Ababa.     Treaty.     Ethiopia,  Great  Britain,  Italy. 

Annex,   Art.    I:   Demarcation   of   Fluvial   Boundary.     Hertslet, 

Africa,  No.  100,  433. 

MARQUAEI;  or  MEKWER. 

1913;  March  11:  London.  Agreement.  Germany /Great  Britain. 
Sect.  I,  Art.  9 :  Thalweg  Boundary.  Art.  29 :  Mutual  Enjoyment 
of  Navigation  &  Fishing.     GB.  Treaty  Series,  (1913),  No.  13. 

MATUMBA  LAKE.    See  TUMBA  LAKE. 

MATJWA. 

1911;  Jan.  21:  Monrovia.  Convention.  Great  Britain  &  Liberia. 
Art.  I:  Thalweg  Boundary.  Art.  II:  Stipulated  that  Thalweg 
should  constitute  Boundary  along  all  Frontier  Rivers  &  Streams 
&  Recognized  Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation  along  these 
Waterways.     GB.  Treaty  Series,  (1911),  No.  16. 


340  AFRICA 

Mayo-Kebbi 

MAYO-IOEBBI. 

1894 ;  March  15 :  Berlin.  Convention.  France/Germany.  Art.  Ill : 
Mutual  Agreement  to  observe  the  Dispositions  governing  Free- 
dom of  Navigation  embodied  in  Arts.  26-33  of  the  Congress 
of  Berlin;  Feb.  26,  1885.  Am.  Jour.  Int.  Law,  VI,  Suppl.  97; 
Martens,  NEC,  Ser.  3,  I,  603. 

1908;  Apr.  18:  Berlin.  Convention.  France/Germany.  Art.  II: 
Renewing  Art.  Ill  of  Treaty  of  March  15,  1894,  providing  for 
Mutual  Enjoyment  of  Fluvial  Navigation  &  Commerce.  Am. 
Jour.  Int.  Law,  VI,  Suppl.,  105;  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  379, 
1215-1222;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  I,  612. 

1911;  Nov.  4:  Berlin.  Convention.  France/Germany.  Art.  10: 
Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation.  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  V, 
657-658. 

MAZOE. 

1891 ;  June  11 :  Lisbon.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/Portugal.  Universal 
Freedom  of  Navigation.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  310,  1018,  1021- 
22;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  19,  781. 

MELI. 

1913;  Sept.  4:  London.  Agreement.  France/Great  Britain.  Art. 
Ill:     Thalweg  Boundary.     GB.  Treaty  Series,  (1913),  No.  19. 

MFINL     See  also  CONGO. 

1885 ;  Feb.  26 :  Berlin.  General  Act  of  the  Congress.  Art.  II :  Uni- 
versal Freedom  of  Navigation.  Chap.  IV,  Arts.  13-25;  Act 
regulating  Navigation.  Art.  VIII :  Right  of  Surveillance  vested 
in  the  International  Navigation  Commission.  Hertslet,  Africa, 
No.  128,  472,  474-481. 

MOMBEZI.     See  PUNGWE. 

MONO. 

1908;  Apr.  18:  Berlin.  Convention.  France/Germany.  Agreement 
to  observe  the  Stipulations  governing  Freedom  of  Navigation 
embodied  in  Arts.  26-33  of  the  Congress  of  Berlin ;  Feb.  26,  1885. 
Am.  Jour.  Int.  Law,  VI,  Suppl.,  105 ;  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  379, 
1215-1222;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  I,  612. 

1911;  Nov.  4:  Berlin.  Convention.  France/Germany.  Art.  10: 
Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation.  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  V, 
657-658. 

1912;     Sept.     28:     Paris.     Convention.     France/Germany.     Mutual 


AFRICA  341 

Mono 

Recognition  of  Equal  Enjoyment  of  Navigation   on  the  River 
Mono.     Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  VII,  381,  395. 

MORNO. 

1913;  March  11:  London.  Agreement.  Germany/Great  Britain. 
Sect.  I,  Art.  9 :  Thalweg  Boundary.  Art.  29 :  Equal  Enjoyment 
of  Navigation  &  Fishing.     GB.  Treaty  Series,  (1913),  No.  13. 

MORRO. 

1911 ;  Jan.  21 :  Monrovia.  Convention.  Great  Britain  &  Liberia. 
Art.  I:  Thalweg  Boundary.  Art.  II:  Reciprocal  Freedom  of 
Navigation.     GB.   Treaty   Series,   (1911),  No.  16. 

MUNI. 

1900 ;  June  27 :  Paris.  Treaty.  France  &  Spain.  Art.  V :  Accorded 
to  French  &  Spanish  Vessels  Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Access  in  the 
Territorial  Waters  of  the  Other  Power;  Recognized  Equal  En- 
joyment of  the  Fluvial  Fisheries.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  359, 
1166. 

MWERU;  or  MOERO;  LAKE  See  also:     CONGO. 

1885 ;  Feb.  26 :  Berlin.  General  Act  of  the  Congress.  Art.  II :  Uni- 
versal Freedom  of  Navigation.  Chap.  IV,  Arts.  13-25 :  Act 
regulating  Navigation.  Art.  VIII:  Right  of  Surveillance  vested 
in  the  International  Navigation  Commission.  Hertslet,  Africa, 
No.  128,  472,  474-481. 

1894 ;  May  12 :  Brussels.  Agreement.  Great  Britain  &  the  Inde- 
pendent State  of  the  Congo.  (H.  M.  King  Leopold  II).  Art. 
I,  sec.  6:  Demarcation  of  International  Boundary.  Hertslet, 
Africa,  No.  163,  578-583. 

NIGER. 

Including  All  Tributary  "Waterways  of  the  System, 
Notably  the  Rivers 

Benue,  or  Chadda ;  Kaduna ; 

Fatiko ;  Sokoto ; 

Gongola;  Tembe-Counda,     or     Tembi- 

Jaliba ;  Koundo. 

1885;  Feb.  26:  Berlin.  General  Act  of  the  Congress  of  Nations: 
Austria-Hungary,  Belgium,  Denmark,  France,  Germany,  Great 
Britain,  Italy,  Netherlands,  Norway,  Portugal,  Russia,  Spain, 
Sweden,  Turkey,  United  States  of  America.  Chap.  V,  Arts.  26- 
33 :  Act  governing  the  Universal  Freedom  of  Fluvial  Navigation. 


342  AFRICA 

Niger 

Clercq,  ETF,  XIV,  447,  454;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  76,  4;  Hertslet, 
Africa,  No.  128,  481-484;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  17,  73;  Mar- 
tens, NRG,  Ser.  2,  X,  414.  (Commentary:  See  also  CONGO. 
AM.  PHILOSOPHICAL  SOC,  Proceedings,  XXVI,  462; 
BONFILS,  Droit  Int.,  337.) 

1886;  July  10:  London.  Law.  Royal  Charter  granted  to  the  Na- 
tional African  Company.  British  Government.  Sect.  15 :  "  The 
Company  shall  be  subject  to  &  shall  perform,  observe,  &  under- 
take all  the  observations  &  stipulations  relating  to  the  River 
Niger,  its  affluents,  branches,  &  outlets,  or  the  territories  neigh- 
boring thereto,  or  situate  in  Africa,  contained  in  &  undertaken 
by  ourselves  under  the  General  Act  of  the  Conference  of  the 
Great  Powers  at  Berlin,  February  26,  1885,  or  in  any  other 
Treaty,  Agreement,  or  Arrangement  between  ourselves  &  any 
other  State  or  Power,  whether  already  made  or  hereafter  to  be 
made."     Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  10,  126. 

1891;  June  26:  Paris.  Treaty.  France/Great  Britain.  Demarca- 
tion of  International  Boundary.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  232,  743- 
744. 

1893 ;  Nov.  15 :  Berlin.  Agreement.  Germany/Great  Britain.  Art. 
VI:  Mutual  Freedom  of  Navigation  Recognized.  Hertslet, 
Africa,  pg.  915;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  19,  255. 

1896;  Jan.  15:  Treaty.  Germany/Great  Britain.  Art.  V:  Utiliza- 
tion of  the  Niger.  GB.  Pari.  Papers,  Treaty  Series,  (1896), 
No.  5. 

1898;  June  14:  Paris.  Agreement.  France/Great  Britain.  Arts. 
I- VI:  Demarcation  International  Boundary.  Art.  IX:  Recog- 
nizing Mutual  Enjoyment  of  Navigation  &  Commerce  during  a 
Thirty  Year  Period  from  Date  of  Ratification.  Hertslet,  Africa, 
No.  241,  785-788. 

1903;  Aug.  10:  London.  Law  (Order  in  Council).  British  Govern- 
ment. Act  regulating  Navigation  on  Niger  &  Affluents.  GB. 
BFSP,  Vol.  96,  230. 


NILE. 

1841 ;  Oct.  12 :  Alexandria.  Law.  Notification  by  Viceroy  of  the 
Egyptian  Government.  Granting  Foreigners  the  Privilege  of 
Building  Vessels  and  of  Navigating  the  River,  subject  to  Pub- 


AFRICA  343 

Nile 
lished  Eegulations.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  29,  1195;  Hertslet,  COM. 
TR,  X,  602. 

1891 ;  Apr.  15 :  Rome.  Agreement.  Great  Britain/Italy.  Art.  I : 
Demarcation  of  Boundary.  Art.  Ill:  Regulating  Diversion  of 
Waters;  Irrigation  Works  on  the  Tributary  Atbara  must  not 
diminish  Usual  Volume.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  289,  949;  Herts- 
let,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  19,  688. 

1902 ;  May  15 :  Adis  Ababa.  Treaty.  Ethiopia/Great  Britain.  For- 
bidding Construction  of  Works  diminishing  or  obstructing  the 
Customary  Flow  of  the  Nile.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  100,  431- 
432. 

1906 ;  May  9 :  London.  Agreement.  Great  Britain/Independent 
State  of  the  Congo.  Art.  Ill :  Regulating  Diversion  of  Waters. 
Art.  VI,  VII:  Establishing  Freedom  of  Navigation  on  the 
Upper  Nile  for  Vessels  under  the  Belgian,  British,  Congolese, 
or  Egyptian  Flags.     Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  165,  584-586. 

NUON. 

1907;  Sept.  18:  Paris.  Convention.  France/Liberia.  Art.  Ill: 
Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation.  Art  I:  Demarcation  of 
Fluvial  Boundary.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  353,  1141;  Martens, 
NRG,  Ser.  3,  III,  1004. 

NYASSA  LAKE. 

1890;  July  1:  Berlin.  Agreement.  Germany/Great  Britain.  Art. 
I,  sect.  2:  Establishing  International  Boundary.  Art.  VIII: 
Freedom  of  Navigation  &  Passage.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  270, 
900,  903;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  18,  459. 

1891;  June  11:  Lisbon.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/Portugal.  Art.  V: 
Establishing  Boundary.  Art.  XII:  Recognizing  Universal  Free- 
dom of  Navigation.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  310,  1022;  Hertslet, 
COM.  TR.,  Vol.  19,  777,  779. 

1893;  May  31/June  5:  London.  Agreement.  Great  Britain  & 
Portugal.  Art.  I:  Provisional  International  Boundary.  Herts- 
let,  Africa,  No.  311,  1027-28. 

OCPARA;  or  OKPA. 

1898;  June  14:  Paris.  Convention.  France/Great  Britain.  Art. 
II:  Adopted  as  International  Boundary.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No. 
241,  786. 

1900;  Dec.  22:  Paris.  Agreement.  France/Great  Britain.  Report 
of  the  Commissioners  establishing  Boundary  in  Thalweg.  Herts- 
let,  Africa,  No.  245,  799. 


344  AFEICA 

Ocpara 

1906 ;   Oct.   19 :  Paris.     Agreement.     France/Great   Britain.     Annex 

I,  Arts.  16-17:  Thalweg  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  258, 

853. 

OKAVANGO.  See  KUBANGO. 
OLD  CALABAR.  See  CROSS. 
OLLPHANTS;   Affluent  of  River  Limpopo.     See  LIMPOPO. 

ORANGE. 

1890 ;  July  1 :  Berlin.  Agreement.  Germany/Great  Britain.  Art. 
Ill,  sect.  1 :  Demarcation  of  Boundary  along  Northern  Bank. 
Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  270,  899-900;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol. 
18,  458-59. 

PAMA ;  Tributary  to  the  River  TJbangi.  See  also :     CONGO. 

1885;  Feb.  26:  Berlin.  General  Act  of  the  Congress.  Art.  II: 
Universal  Freedom  of  Navigation.  Chap.  IV,  Arts.  13-25: 
Act  regulating  Navigation.  Art.  VIII:  Right  of  Surveillance 
vested  in  the  International  Navigation  Commission.  Hertslet, 
Africa,  No.  128,  472,  474-481. 

1908 ;  Apr.  18 :  Berlin.  Convention.  France/Germany.  Mutual 
Freedom  of  Navigation  &  Commerce.  Am.  Jour.  Int.  Law,  VI, 
Suppl.,  105 ;  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  379,  1215-1222 ;  Martens,  NRG, 
Ser.  3,  I,  612. 

1911;  Nov.  4:  Berlin.  Convention.  France/Germany.  Reciprocal 
Enjoyment  of  Navigation.  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  V,  643,  657- 
658. 

PIBOR;  Affluent  of  the  River  Sobat. 

1902 ;  May  15 :  Adis  Ababa.  Treaty.  Ethiopia/Great  Britain.  Art. 
I:     Demarcation  of  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  100,  431. 

PUNGWE,  Including  Affluents  MOMBEZI  &  RUERA. 

1890;  Nov.  14:  London.  Agreement.  Great  Britain  &  Portugal. 
Arts.  I,  II:  Freedom  of  Navigation,  including  the  Unrestricted 
Use  of  Landways  along  Innavigable  Sections.  Hertslet,  Africa, 
No.  309,  1014;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  18,  1051;  Martens, 
NRG,  Ser.  2,  XVI,  942 ;  XVIII,  160. 

1891;  June  11:  Lisbon.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/Portugal.  Art. 
XII:  Recognizing  Universal  Freedom  of  Navigation.  Hertslet, 
Africa,  No.  310,  1022;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  19,  777,  781. 


AFKIOA  845 

Pungwe 

1912;    July    22/ Aug.    9:    Lisbon.      Agreement.     Great    Britain    & 

Portugal.     Establishing  International  Boundary  in  Thalweg  of 

the    Eivers    Mombezi,    Pungwe,    &    Kuera,    respectively.     GB. 

Treaty  Series,  (1912),  No.  21. 

KAFIN  DONGA. 

1913;  March  11:  London.  Agreement.  Germany/Great  Britain. 
Sect.  I,  Art.  9 :  Thalweg  Boundary.  Art.  29 :  Equal  Enjoyment 
of  Navigation  &  Fishing.     GB.  Treaty  Series,  (1913),  No.  13. 

RAHAD. 

1891;  April  15:  Eome.  Agreement.  Great  Britain/Italy.  Art.  II: 
Demarcation  of  Fluvial  Boundary.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  289, 
949;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  19,  688. 

ROVUMA. 

1886;  Dec.  3/4:  Zanzibar.  Agreement.  Germany,  Great  Britain, 
Zanzibar.  Art.  I:  Defining  Territorial  Limits;  Establishing 
Boundary  along  Right  (Southern)  Bank  of  the  Rovuma.  Hert- 
slet, Africa,  No.  41,  304. 

1886;  Dec.  30:  Lisbon.  Agreement.  Germany/Portugal.  Art.  II: 
Thalweg  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  216,  704. 

1890 ;  July  1 :  Berlin.  Agreement.  Germany/Great  Britain.  Art.  I, 
sect.  2:  Demarcation  Boundary.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  20,  899- 
900;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  18,  458-59. 

1891;  June  11:  Lisbon.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/Portugal.  Art.  I, 
sec.  1:  Establishing  Boundary  of  British  &  Portuguese  Spheres 
of  Influence.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  310,  1022;  Hertslet,  COM. 
TR.,  Vol.  19,  777-780. 

1894;  Aug.  30/Sept.  1:  Lisbon.  Agreement.  Germany  &  Portugal. 
Thalweg  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  217,  706. 

RUDOLPH,  or  RUDOLF,  LAKE. 

1907;  Dec.  6:  Adis  Ababa.  Agreement.  Ethiopia  &  Great  Britain. 
Demarcation  of  Boundary-Line  in  North-westerly  Direction 
across  the  Lake.    Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  103,  445. 

RUERA.    See  PUNGWE. 

RUO ;  Tributary  to  River  Shire. 

1891;  June  11:  Lisbon.     Treaty.     Great  Britain/Portugal.     Art.  I, 

sect.  1:  Establishing  Respective  Spheres.     Hertslet,  Africa,  No. 

310,  1022;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  19,  777-780. 


346  AFEIOA 

Ruo 

1893;  May  31/June  5:  London.  Agreement.  Great  Britain  & 
Portugal.  Art.  I:  Boundary.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  311,  1027- 
29. 

KUSIZl;  or  KUSSISI  See  also:    CONGO. 

1885 ;  Feb.  26 :  Berlin.  General  Act  of  the  Congress.  Art.  II :  Uni- 
versal Freedom  of  Navigation.  Chap.  IV,  Arts.  13-25:  Act 
regulating  Navigation.  Art.  VIII :  Right  of  Surveillance  vested 
in  the  International  Navigation  Commission.  Hertslet,  Africa, 
No.  128,  472,  474-481. 

SABI;  or  SAVE:  Including  Affluents  Crocodile  &  Komati. 

1890;  Aug.  20:  London.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/Portugal.  Estab- 
lishing Freedom  of  Navigation.  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  2,  XVI, 
929. 

1891 ;  June  11 :  Lisbon.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/Portugal.  Art.  XII : 
Universal  Freedom  of  Navigation  for  Transport  of  Persons  & 
Merchandise.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  310,  1022;  Hertslet,  COM. 
TR,  Vol.  19,  777-780. 

SACCHI;  or  KIBISH. 

1907;  Dec.  6:  Adis  Ababa.  Agreement.  Ethiopia  &  Great  Britain. 
Thalweg  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  103,  445. 

SANGA  See  also :    CONGO. 

1885;  Feb.  26:  Berlin.  General  Act  of  the  Congress.  Art.  II:  Uni- 
versal Freedom  of  Navigation.  Chap.  IV,  Arts.  13-25:  Act 
regulating  Navigation.  Art.  VIII :  Right  of  Surveillance  vested 
in  the  International  Navigation  Commission.  Hertslet,  Africa, 
No.  128,  472,  474-481. 

1908;  Apr.  18:  Berlin.  Convention.  France/Germany.  Art.  II: 
Mutual  Freedom  of  Navigation  &  Commerce  in  conformity  with 
Stipulations  of  Arts.  26-33  of  the  General  Act  of  Berlin.  Am. 
Jour.  Int.  Law.,  VI,  Suppl.,  105;  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  379, 
1215-1222 ;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  I,  612. 

1911;  Nov.  4:  Berlin.  Convention.  France/Germany.  Art.  10: 
Reciprocal  Enjoyment  of  Navigation.  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3, 
V,  657.  (Commentary:  GB.  Dipl.  &  Consular  Reports,  French 
Congo,  (1914),  pg.  3.) 

1912;  Sept.  28:  Paris.  Convention.  France/Germany.  Naviga- 
tion Regulations.     Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  VII,  135. 

SEMLIKI;or  ISANGO. 

1906;    May    9:    London.     Agreement.     Great    Britain/Independent 


AFRICA  347 

Semliki 

State  of  the  Congo,  Art.  Ill:  Forbidding  Construction  of  any 
Works  diminishing  the  Customary  Flow  of  the  River.  Hertslet, 
Africa,  No.   165,  584-585. 

SETIT. 

1902 ;  May  15 :  Adis  Ababa.  Treaty.  Ethiopia,  Great  Britain,  Italy. 
Annex,  Art.  I:  Thalweg  constitutes  Boundary  to  confluence  with 
the  River  Maieteb.     Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  100,  433. 

SHARI;  or  CHARI. 

1893 ;  Nov.  15 :  Berlin.  Agreement.  Germany/Great  Britain.  Art. 
IV:  Demarcation  of  Fluvial  Boundary.  Art.  VI:  Freedom  of 
Navigation  Recognized.  Hertslet,  Africa,  pg.  915;  Hertslet, 
COM.  TR.,  Vol.  19,  254-55. 

1894 ;  March  15  :  Berlin.  Convention.  France/Germany.  Art.  Ill : 
Mutual  Agreement  to  observe  the  Stipulations  governing  Free- 
dom of  Navigation  embodied  in  Arts.  26-33  of  the  Congress  of 
Berlin;  Feb.  26,  1885.  Am.  Jour.  Int.  Law,  VI,  SuppL,  97; 
Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  I,  603. 

1908 ;  Apr  18 :  Berlin.  Convention.  France/Germany.  Art.  II :  Re- 
newing Art.  Ill  of  Treaty  of  March  15,  1894,  providing  for 
Mutual  Enjoyment  of  Fluvial  Navigation  &  Commerce.  Am. 
Jour.  Int.  Law,  VI,  SuppL,  105 ;  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  379,  1215- 
1222;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  I,  612. 

1911;  Nov.  4:  Berlin.  Convention.  France/Germany.  Art.  10: 
Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation.  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  3,  V, 
657-58. 

SHAVOE ;  or  DCHAWE ;  Affluent  of  the  River  Volta. 

1890;  July  1:  Berlin.  Agreement.  Germany/Great  Britain.  Art. 
IV,  sec.  1:  Adopted  as  Boundary  between  the  Gold  Coast  & 
German  Togoland.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  270,  899-900,  903 ;  Hert- 
slet, COM.  TR.,  Vol.  18,  458-459. 

SHIRE 

1890;  Aug.  20:  London.  Convention.  Great  Britain  &  Portugal. 
Free  Navigation  for  Merchant  Vessels  of  All  Nations.  Mar- 
tens, NRG,  Ser.  2,  XVI,  929.  (Commentary:  Correspondence  be- 
tween Great  Britain  &  Portugal  during  the  years  1876  &  1877 
concerning  navigation  of  the  River  Shire.)  GB.  BFSP,  Vol. 
68,  1345.) 

1890 ;  Nov.  14 :  London.     Agreement.     Great  Britain/Portugal.     Arts. 


348  AFRICA 

Shire 

I-II :  Freedom  of  Navigation,  including  the  Unrestricted  Use  of 
Landways  along  Innavigable  Sections  of  the  River.  Hertslet, 
Africa,  No.  309,  1014;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  18,  1051;  Mar- 
tens, NRG,  Ser.  II,  XVI,  942 ;  XVIII,  160. 

1890;  Nov.  18:  Lisbon.  Law  (Royal  Decree).  Government  of  Portu- 
gal. Art.  I :  "  The  Navigation  of  the  Rivers  Zambesi  and  Shire, 
in  so  far  as  they  are  under  the  sovereignty,  protectorate,  or  in- 
fluence of  Portugal,  is  free  to  the  vessels  of  All  Nations,  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  principles  which  the  Governments  of  France 
and  Great  Britain  agreed  to  establish  on  the  Niger,  in  virtue  of 
the  General  Act  of  Berlin  in  1885."  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  82,  338 ; 
Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  309,  1015-16 ;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  18, 
1052. 

1891;  June  11:  Lisbon.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/Portugal.  Art. 
XII:  Establishing  Freedom  of  Navigation  for  Vessels  of  All 
Nations  throughout  the  Navigable  Course,  including  Affluents  & 
Outlets.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  310,  1022;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR., 
Vol.  19,  777,  781. 

1892;  May  18:  Lisbon.  Law  (Royal  Decree).  Government  of  Portu- 
gal. Regulating  Navigation  of  the  Shire.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  87, 
1108;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  21,  1129. 

1893 ;  May  31/June  5 :  London.  Agreement.  Great  Britain  &  Portu- 
gal. Art.  I :  Fluvial  Boundary  Line.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  311, 
1027-29. 

SHIRWA  LAKE.    See  CHILWA  LAKE. 
SOBAT 

1902;  May  15:  Adis  Ababa.  Treaty.  Ethiopia,  Great  Britain,  Italy. 
Art.  Ill:  Forbidding  the  Construction  of  Works  impeding  or 
diminishing  the  Customary  Flow  of  the  River  into  the  Nile. 
Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  100,  432-433. 

SOKOTO  See  also:     NIGER. 

1885 ;  Feb.  26 :  Berlin.     General  Act  of  the  Congress.     Chap.  V,  Arts. 

26-33:     Act   regulating  the   Navigation   of  the   Niger   System. 

Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  128,  481-484. 
1893;  Nov.  15:  Berlin.     Agreement.     Germany/Great  Britain.     Art. 

VI:    Mutual    Freedom    of    Navigation    Recognized.     Hertslet, 

Africa,  pg.  915 ;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  19,  253-54. 

SONGWE 

1890 ;  July  1 :  Berlin.     Agreement.     Germany/Great  Britain.    Art.  I, 


AFKICA  349 

Songwe 

sect.  2:  Thalweg  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  270,  899-900; 
Hertslet,  COM.  TK.,  Vol.  18,  459. 
1901;  Feb.  23:  Berlin.     Agreement.     Germany/Great  Britain.     Sect. 
I :  Thalweg  Boundary.     Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  279,  925-26. 

STEFANIE  LAKE 

1907;  Dec.   6:   Adis  Ababa.     Agreement.     Ethiopia,   Great  Britain, 

Italy.     Demarcation      of      International      Boundary.     Hertslet, 

Africa,  No.  103,  445. 

TANA 

1886;  Oct.  29/Nov.  1:  London.  Agreement.  Germany/Great  Brit- 
ain. Art.  Ill:  Thalweg  to  constitute  Boundary  from  Sea  to 
the  Equator.     Hertslet,  Africa  (1896  edit.),  pg.  616. 

1886;  Dec.  3/4:  Zanzibar.  Agreement.  Germany,  Great  Britain, 
Zanzibar.  Art.  I:  Defining  Kespective  Spheres  of  Influence. 
Art.  II:  Thalweg  of  the  River  Tana  &  its  Affluents  to  mark  In- 
ternational Boundary  from  Equator  to  the  Sea.  Hertslet, 
Africa,  No.  41,  304-305. 

TANGANYIKA  LAKE  See  also:    CONGO. 

1885 ;  Feb.  26 :  Berlin.  General  Act  of  the  Congress.  Art.  II :  Uni- 
versal Freedom  of  Navigation.  Art.  VIII :  Right  of  Surveillance 
vested  in  the  International  Navigation  Commission.  Art.  13- 
25  of  Chap.  IV:  Act  regulating  Navigation.  Hertslet,  Africa, 
No.  128,  472,  474-481. 

1889;  Aug.  10:  Berlin.  Agreement.  Germany/Great  Britain.  Art. 
VIII:  Recognizing  Free  Transit  of  Vessels.  Hertslet,  COM. 
TR.,  Vol.  18,  459. 

1890;  July  1:  Berlin.  Agreement.  Germany/Great  Britain.  Art. 
VIII:  Universal  Freedom  of  Navigation;  Expressly  recognized 
concerning  Vessels  of  the  Contracting  Powers,  forbidding 
Transit  Dues.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  270,  900-902;  Hertslet, 
COM.  TR.,  Vol.  18,  459. 

1894;  May  12:  Brussels.  Agreement.  Great  Britain  &  H.  M.  King 
Leopold  II,  Sovereign  of  the  Independent  State  of  the  Congo. 
Art.  I,  sec.  6 :  Designating  Boundary.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  163, 
578-583. 

1906;  May  9:  London.  Agreement.  Great  Britain/Independent 
State  of  the  Congo.  Modifying  Agreement  of  Brussels,  May 
12,  1894,  concerning  Boundaries  in  Africa.  Hertslet,  Africa, 
No.  165,  584^86.     (Commentary:  Consult,  also,  the  Conventions 


350  AFEICA 

Tanganyika  Lake 

of  April  14,  1893 ;  November  15,  1893 ;  March  19,  1906 ;  &  July  18, 
1906.     Hertslet,  Africa,  pgs.  910,  913,  937,  942.) 

TEKDO;  or  TANOE;  LAGOON. 

1889;  Aug.  10:  Paris.  Agreement.  France/Great  Britain.  Art. 
Ill,  sect.  2 :  Establishing  Freedom  of  Navigation  for  Vessels  of 
Both  Nations.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  226,  731;  Hertslet,  COM. 
TR,  Vol.  18,  420-421. 

TENDO;  or  TANOE;  EIVEK. 

1889;  Aug.  10:  Paris.  Agreement.  France/Great  Britain.  Art. 
Ill,  sect.  2:  Establishing  Freedom  of  Navigation  for  Vessels  of 
Both  Nations.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  226,  731;  Hertslet,  COM. 
TK.,  Vol.  18,  420. 

1893 ;  July  12 :  Paris.  Agreement.  France/Great  Britain.  Arts.  2, 
3,  4 :  Demarcation  of  Fluvial  Boundary.  Art.  5 :  Mutual  En- 
joyment of  Riverain  Fisheries.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  236,  756; 
Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  19,  228. 

1907;  June  16/25:  London.  Agreement.  France/Great  Britain. 
Regulating  the  Dredging  of  Gold  in  the  Neutral  Waters  of  the 
River  Tendo.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  100,  498;  Hertslet,  Africa,  No. 
259,  861;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  Ill,  VI,  790. 

TIEL 

1906;  March  19:  London.  Treaty.  Germany/Great  Britain.  Art. 
II :  Demarcation  of  Fluvial  Boundary.  Freedom  of  Navigation 
&  Fishing  to  be  enjoyed  equally  by  Both  Nations.  Hertslet, 
Africa,  No.  284,  937-38;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  Ill,  II,  691. 

T0NE:E;  or  OKAVANGO.  See  KUBANGO. 

TSANA  LAKE 

1902 ;  May  15  :  Adis  Ababa.  Treaty.  Ethiopia,  Great  Britain,  Italy. 
Art.  Ill:  Forbidding  the  Construction  of  Works  impeding  or 
diminishing  the  Customary  Flow  of  Water  from  the  Lake  into 
the  Nile.     Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  100,  432-33. 

TUMBA;  or  MATUMBA  LAKE  See  also:     CONGO. 

1885 ;  Feb.  26 :  Berlin,  General  Act  of  the  Congress.  Art.  II :  Uni- 
versal Freedom  of  Navigation.  Chap.  IV,  Arts.  13-25 :  Act 
regulating  Navigation.  Art.  VIII :  Right  of  Surveillance  vested 
in  the  International  Navigation  Commission.  Hertslet,  Africa, 
No.  128,  472,  474r481. 


AFRICA  351 

Ubangi 

TTBANGI  See  also:    CONGO. 

1885 ;  Feb.  26 :  Berlin.  General  Act  of  the  Congress.  Art.  II :  Uni- 
versal Freedom  of  Navigation.  Chap.  IV,  Arts.  13-25:  Act 
regulating  Navigation.  Art.  VIII :  Eight  of  Surveillance  vested 
in  the  International  Navigation  Commission.  Hertslet,  Africa, 
No.  128,  472,  474-481. 

1908;  Apr.  18:  Berlin.  Convention.  France/Germany.  Art.  II: 
Mutual  Freedom  of  Navigation  &  Commerce  in  conformity  with 
the  Dispositions  of  Arts.  26-33  of  the  General  Act  of  Berlin. 
Am.  Jour.  Int.  Law,  VI,  Suppl.,  105 ;  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  379, 
1215-1222;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  Ill,  I,  612. 

1911;  Nov.  4:  Berlin.  Convention.  France/Germany.  Art.  10: 
Reciprocal  Enjoyment  of  Navigation.  Martens,  NRG,  ser.  3,  V, 
657.  (Commentary:  GB.  Dipl.  &  Consular  Reports,  French 
Congo,   (1914),  pg.  3.) 

1912;  Sept.  28:  Paris.  Convention.  France/Germany.  Navigation 
Regulations.     Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  Ill,  VII,  135. 

UGALA;orMALAGARAZI;orUKUMBI  See  also:     CONGO. 

1885 ;  Feb.  26 ;  Berlin.  General  Act  of  the  Congress.  Art.  II :  Uni- 
versal Freedom  of  Navigation.  Chap.  IV,  Arts.  13-25:  Act 
regulating  Navigation.  Art.  VIII :  Right  of  Surveillance  vested 
in  the  International  Navigation  Commission.  Hertslet,  Africa, 
No.  128,  472,  474-481. 

ULAFU;  or  ULDAFU. 

1913;  Sept.  4:  London.  Agreement.  France/Great  Britain.  Art. 
11:  Thalweg  Boundary.     GB.  Treaty  Series,  (1913),  No.  19. 

UTAMBONI;  or  OUTEMBONI 

1900 ;  June  27 :  Paris.  Treaty.  France  &  Spain.  Art.  V :  Accorded 
to  French  &  Spanish  Vessels  Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Access  into 
the  Territorial  Waters  of  the  Other  Power;  Recognized  Equal 
Enjoyment  of  the  Fluvial  Fisheries.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  359, 
1166. 

VICTORIA  NYANZA 

1886;  Dec.  3/4:  Zanzibar.  Agreement.  Germany,  Great  Britain, 
Zanzibar.  Art.  Ill :  Designating  the  Precise  Point  at  which  the 
International  Boundary  shall  strike  the  Lake-Shore.  Hertslet, 
Africa,  No.  41,  304-305. 

1890;   July   5:  Berlin.     Agreement.     Germany/Great  Britain.     Art. 


352  AFEICA 

Victoria  Nyanza 

I,  sect.   1:   Demarcation  of  Boundary  on  the  Lake.     Hertslet, 
Africa,  No.  270,  902;  Hertslet,  COM,  TR.,  Vol.  18,  459. 

1904;  July  15 :  London.  Law  (Order  of  the  Foreign  Office  Secretary). 
British  Government.  Designating  certain  Islands  within  the 
Lake  to  be  under  British  Dominion,  in  accordance  with  the 
East  African  Order  in  Council  of  1902.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No. 
82,  386. 

VOLTA 

1887 ;  Dec.  (no.  date)  :  Agreement.  Joint  Recommendations  of  the 
British  &  German  Commissioners  adopted  by  the  British  Gov- 
ernment, March  12th,  &  by  the  German  Government,  March  14th, 
1888.  Establishing  Fluvial  Boundary  between  the  Respective 
Territories.     Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  268,  890-91. 

1890;  July  1:  Berlin.  Agreement.  Germany /Great  Britain.  Art. 
IV:  Demarcation  of  International  Boundary.  Hertslet,  Africa, 
No.  270,  900-903 ;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  18,  458-459. 

WOM 

1913;  March  11:  London.  Agreement.  Germany/Great  Britain. 
Sect.  I,  Art.  9 :  Thalweg  Boundary.  Art.  29 :  Recognizing  Equal 
Rights  of  Navigation  &  Fishing.  GB.  Treaty  Series,  (1913), 
No.  13. 

YEDERAM;  or  YADSERAM 

1906;   March   19:   London.     Treaty.     Germany/Great  Britain.     Art. 

IV:  Demarcation  of  Boundary;  Recognizing  Equal  Enjoyment 

of   Navigation   &   Fishing   by   Inhabitants    of    Both    Countries. 

Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  284,  937-38;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  Ill,  II, 

69L 

ZAMBESI 

1884 ;  Dec.  18 :  Berlin.  Announcement  delivered  before  the  West 
African  Conference  by  the  Portuguese  Delegate  that  the  Govern- 
ment of  Portugal  had  introduced,  voluntarily,  the  System  of 
Free  Navigation  upon  the  Zambesi  System.  Hertslet,  COM. 
TR.,  Vol.  17,  1357. 

1885;  Feb.  26:  Berlin.  General  Act  of  the  Congress  of  Nations: 
Austria-Hungary,  Belgium,  Denmark,  France,  Germany,  Great 
Britain,  Italy,  Netherlands,  Norway,  Portugal,  Russia,  Spain, 
Sweden,  United  States  of  America.  Clercq,  RTF,  XIV,  447, 
454;  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  76,  4;  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  128,  472,  47^ 


AFEICA  353 

Zambesi 
481;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  17,  65,  68;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser. 
2,  X,  414.  Chap.  I,  Art.  T,  sect.  3 ;  Art.  II :  Freedom  of  Naviga- 
tion accorded  the  Vessels  of  the  Contracting  Powers,  exclusively. 
(Commentary:  Correspondence  between  Great  Britain  &  Portu- 
gal concerning  the  navigation  of  the  River  Zambesi:  1.  During 
the  years  1876  &  1877,— GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  68,  1345;  2.  During 
the  years  1882, 1883,  &  1884,—  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  75, 1272 ;  3.  Dur- 
ing the  years  1887  &  1888,  discussing  especially  the  refusal  of  the 
Portuguese  Authorities  at  Mozambique  to  permit  foreign  vessels 
to  participate  in  the  navigation  of  the  River  Zambesi,  the  pre- 
sumption of  the  Portuguese  Government  being  contested,  and  not 
admitted,  by  the  British,—  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  79,  1062.) 

1890;  July  1:  Berlin.  Agreement.  Germany/Great  Britain.  Art. 
Ill,  sect.  2 :  Demarcation  of  Fluvial  Boundary.  Hertslet,  Africa, 
No.  270,  900-903 ;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  18,  459. 

1890;  Aug.  20:  London.  Convention.  Great  Britain  &  Portugal. 
Art.  XII:  Free  Navigation  accorded  to  Merchant  Vessels  of  All 
Nations.     Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  2,  XVI,  929. 

1890;  Nov.  14:  London.  Agreement.  Great  Britain/Portugal.  Arts. 
I-II:  Freedom  of  Navigation,  including  the  Unrestricted  Use  of 
Landways  along  Innavigable  Sections  of  the  Course.  Hertslet, 
Africa,  No.  309,  1014;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  18,  1051;  Mar- 
tens, NRG,  Ser.  II,  XVI,  942 ;  XVIII,  160. 

1890;  Nov.  18:  Lisbon.  Law  (Royal  Decree).  Portuguese  Govern- 
ment. Art.  I :  "  The  Navigation  of  the  Rivers  Zambesi  and 
Shire,  in  so  far  as  they  are  under  the  sovereignty,  protector- 
ate, or  influence  of  Portugal,  is  free  to  the  vessels  of  All  Na- 
tions. .  .  ."  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  82,  338;  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  309, 
1015-16 ;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  18,  1052. 

1891 ;  June  11 :  Lisbon.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/Portugal.  Arts.  11- 
13 :  Establishing  Freedom  of  Navigation  for  Vessels  of  All  Na- 
tions throughout  the  Navigable  Course,  including  Affluents  and 
Outlets.  Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  310,  1022;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR., 
Vol.  19,  777-781. 

1892;  May  18:  Lisbon.  Law  (Royal  Decree).  Government  of 
Portugal.  Regulating  Navigation  upon  the  Zambesi.  GB. 
BFSP,  Vol.  87,  1108;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  21,  1129. 

1893 ;  May  31/June  5 :  London.  Agreement.  Great  Britain  & 
Portugal.  Art.  I:  Fluvial  Boundary;  Demarcation  of  Respec- 
tive Spheres  of  Influence.     Hertslet,  Africa,  No.  311,  1027-29. 


354  ASIA 

Amur 

ASIA, 
AUSTRALIA,  & 
ISLANDS  OF  THE  SEA 
AMUR 

1858 ;  May  16/28 :  Aignn.  Treaty.  China/Russia.  Art.  I :  Recipro  • 
cal  Freedom  of  Navigation;  Participation  by  Foreign  Vessels 
explicitly  Prohibited.  Hertslet,  China,  No.  80,  454.  (Commen- 
tary :  H.  B.  MORSE,  The  International  Relations  of  the  Chinese 
Empire,  pg.  477.) 

1860 ;  Nov.  2/14 :  Peking.  Treaty.  China/Russia.  Governing  Free- 
dom of  Navigation  &  Commerce.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  82,  462. 

1881 ;  Feb.  12/24 :  St.  Petersburg.  Treaty.  China/Russia.  Art.  18 : 
Confirming  the  Reciprocal  Rights  of  Navigation  as  embodied 
in  Art.  I  of  Treaty  of  Aigun,  May  16/26,  1858.  Hertslet,  China, 
No.  85,  490. 

1905;  Dec.  22:  Aigun  (Aihun).  Additional  Agreement.  China/ 
Japan.  Establishing  Aigun  as  a  Treaty  Port;  Access  granted 
Vessels  by  River  Amur.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  67,  393. 

1911;  Dec.  7/20:  Tsitsikar.  Treaty.  China/Russia.  Demarcation 
Fluvial  Boundary.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  104,  883. 

ARGUN  See  also:    AMUR. 

1911;  Dec.  7/20:  Tsitsikar.  Treaty.  China/Russia,  Demarcation 
of  Fluvial  Boundary.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  104,  883. 

1912;  Oct.  21/Nov.  3:  Urga.  Convention.  Mongolia  (China)  & 
Russia.  Art.  XII:  Navigation  available  for  Russian  Subjects 
&  Russian  Vessels.     Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  Ill,  VII,  17. 

BORNEO 

Waterways  of  the  Island  of  Borneo,  including  the  River  Seboekoe 
(Seboukou,  or  Sibuku)  and  some  15  minor  streams. 

1891;  June  20:  London.  Convention.  Great  Britain  &  the  Nether- 
lands. Art.  VI :  "  The  navigation  of  all  rivers  flowing  into  the 
sea  between  Batoe-Tinagat  and  the  River  Siboekoe  shall  be 
free,  except  for  the  transportation  of  war  material,  and  no  trans- 
port duties  shall  be  levied  on  other  goods  passing  up  those 
rivers."  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  83,  41;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol. 
19,  755-56. 

(NOTE: 

(A  controversy  concerning  this  area  continued  for  many  years  be- 


ASIA  355 

Borneo 

tween  the  British  North  Borneo  Company  and  the  Netherlands; 
the  British  claiming  the  River  Soboekoe  for  the  southern 
boundary,  while  the  Netherlands  considered  Cape  Batoe-Tinagat 
the  appropriate  boundary.  The  British  Company  of  North 
Borneo  raised  its  flag  on  this  river,  September  7,  1883,  in  reply 
to  the  erection  of  a  boundary  obelisk  by  the  Dutch  Government 
upon  Cape  Batoe-Tinagat,  and  an  English  vessel  made  an  ex- 
tensive survey  up  the  River  Soboekoe,  which  accommodates  ves- 
sels drawing  21  feet.  V.  de  Saint-Martin,  Geographie  Univer- 
selle,  (Paris,  1892).) 

1915 ;  Sept.  28 :  London.  Treaty.  Great  Britain/Netherlands.  De- 
marcation of  Fluvial  International  Boundaries;  Compromising 
the  Rival  Claims.     GB.  Treaty  Series,  (1915),  No.  12. 

CAMBODIA  LAKE.     See  GRAND  LAKE  OF  CAMBODIA. 

CANTON ;  or  CHU-KIANG ;  or  PEARL    See  also :    WEST  RIVER. 

1842;  Aug.  29:  Nanking.  Treaty.  China/Great  Britain.  Art.  II: 
Preliminary  Provisions  governing  Foreign  Access  to  Port  of 
Canton;  Privilege  of  Residence  accorded  British  Subjects  for 
Purposes  of  Trade.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  1,  pg.  3. 

1847 ;  April  6 :  Convention.  China/Great  Britain.  Granting  Entry 
to  British  Vessels  at  Termination  of  Two-year  Period.  Hertslet, 
China,  No.  5,  18. 

1858 ;  June  18 :  Tientsin.  Treaty.  China/United  States.  Art.  XIV : 
Navigation  of  the  River  granted  American  Vessels  between  the 
Port  of  Canton  &  the  Sea.  Hertslet,  China,  No.  94,  (Commen- 
tary: C.  J.  H.  HAYES,  History  of  Modern  Europe,  II,  562- 
563.) 

1858;  June  26:  Tientsin.  Treaty.  China/Great  Britain.  Art.  I: 
Renewing  &  Confirming  Dispositions  of  Art.  II  of  Treaty  of 
Nanking,  Aug.  29,  1842.  Art.  54:  Confirming  Provisions  of 
Treaty  of  April  6,  1847.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  6,  18-19. 

1861;  Sept.  2:  Tientsin.  Treaty.  China/Germany.  Art.  VI:  Free 
Navigation  between  Canton  &  the  Sea.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  56. 

1863 ;  July  13 :  Tientsin.  Treaty.  China/Denmark.  Art.  XI :  Per- 
mitting Navigation  by  Danish  Vessels.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  38. 

1863;  Oct.  6:  Tientsin.  Treaty.  China/Netherlands.  Art.  II: 
Stipulating  that  Dutch  Merchant  Vessels  may  navigate  freely 
between  Canton  &  the  Sea.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  70. 

1865;  Nov.  2:  Peking.  Treaty.  Belgium/China.  Art.  XI:  Secur- 
ing for  Belgian  Vessels  enjoyment  of  Fluvial  Navigation. 
Hertslet,  China,  No.  34,  226. 


356  ASIA 

Canton 

1869;  Sept.  2:  Peking.  Treaty.  Austria/China.  Art.  VIII:  Free- 
dom of  Navigation  between  Canton  &  the  Sea  granted  Austrian 
Vessels.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  33. 

1880;  March  31:  Additional  Agreement.  China/Germany.  Regu- 
lating Participation  by  German  Vessels  in  Commercial  Naviga- 
tion.    Hertslet,  China,  No.  57. 

1898 ;  July  28 :  Peking.  Law.  Universal  Freedom  of  Navigation. 
See  CHINESE  INLAND  WATERWAYS. 

CAO-BANG  See  also:     WEST. 

1887 ;  June  26 :  Peking.  Treaty.  China/France.  Art.  VI :  Govern- 
ing Navigation  by  French  Vessels  within  Chinese  Dominions. 
Hertslet,  China,  No.  48. 

1898;  July  28:  Peking.  Law.  Universal  Freedom  of  Navigation. 
See  CHINESE  INLAND  WATERWAYS. 

CASPIAN  SEA 

1813;  Oct.  12:  Gulistan.  Treaty  of  Perpetual  Peace.  Persia  & 
Russia.  Art.  V:  Freedom  of  Navigation,  including  Enjoyment 
of  Coasting  Trade,  by  the  Merchant  Vessels  of  Both  Nations 
recognized;  Russia  obtaining  the  Sole  Right  of  Maintaining 
War- Vessels  upon  the  Sea.  Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC,  V,  part  2, 
109.  (Commentary;  BONFILS,  Droit  Int.,  sec.  495,  pg.  308; 
HEFFTER,  Droit  Int.  Publ.,  Sec.  77,  Note  2;  RIVIER,  Droit 
des  Gens.  I,  144,  230.) 

1828;  Feb.  22:  Turkmanchai.  Treaty.  Persia/Russia.  Art.  VIII: 
Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation,  including  the  Privilege  of 
Coasting  Trade  &  the  Landing  of  Merchandise,  for  Merchant 
Vessels  of  Both  Nations.  Sole  Right  of  Russia  to  maintain 
War- Vessels  on  the  Caspian  re-affirmed.  Cussy/Hauterive,  RTC, 
V,  part  2,  112.  (Commentary:  MOORE,  ILD,  I,  669;  OPPEN- 
HEIM,  Int.  Law,  I,  231.  PHILLIMORE,  Int.  Law,  I,  sec. 
205.) 

1869;  Nov.  24:  St.  Petersburg.  Law.  (Decision  of  the  Imperial 
Council.)  Government  of  Russia.  Prohibiting  the  Establish- 
ment of  Companies  for  the  Navigation  of  the  Caspian  Sea,  and 
to  Foreigners  even  the  Acquisition  or  Possession  of  Stock  Shares 
in  Navigation  Undertakings  operating  upon  the  Sea.  GB. 
BFSP,  Vol.  63,  925;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  XIII,  744. 

CHIEN-TANG.     See  TSIEN-TANG. 

CHINESE  INLAND  WATERWAYS 

Pursuant    to   the   Imperial   Regulations    issued    at   Peking   by    the 


ASIA  35Y 

Chinese  Inland  Waterways 

Tsung-li  Yamen  on  July  28th,  1898,  the  steam  vessels  of  all 
nations  enjoy  equal  freedom  with  native  vessels  upon  the  Inland 
"Waterways  of  China  — 

Notahly 
The  Rivers 

Canton,  or  Chu-kiang,  or  Pearl; 
Cao-Bang,  A  tributary  of  Tso-kiang; 

Han-kiang ; 

Hoang-ho,  or  Hwang-ho; 

Hun-ho,  A  tributary  of  the  Liao-ho; 

Hun-ho,  A  tributary  of  the  Pai-ho; 

Hwai-ho ; 

Liao-ho ; 

Lwan-ho ; 

Min-kiang ; 

Pai-ho,  or  Pei-ho; 

Pei-kiang ; 

Song-ki-kong,  A  tributary  of  the  Tso-kiang; 

Tsien-Tang,  or  Chien-Tang; 

Tso-kiang,  An  affluent  of  the  West  Kiver; 

Tumen ; 

Tung-kiang; 

West,  or  Si-kiang; 

Whangpoo,  or  Huangpoo,  or  Woosung; 

Wu-kiang; 

Yalu; 

Yang-tsze-kiang ; 

Yung-kiang. 

The  Lakes 

Po-Yang-Lu ; 

Tung-Ting-lu  and 

The  Grand,  or  Imperial  Canal. 
1898 ;  July  28 :  Peking.     Law,     Government  of  China.     Arts.  I-IX. 

Eegulations  issued  by  the  Tsung-li  Yamen  to  the  Chinese  Super- 
intendents of  Trade  opening  the  navigable,  inland  waterways  of 

the  Empire  to  merchant  vessels,  if  duly  registered,  whether  native, 

or   under   flags   of  foreign   nations.     Hertslet,    China    No    138 

721-722. 
1898;  September   (no  date):  Peking.     Law.     Government  of  China. 

Supplementary  Eegulations  amplifying  the  Law  of  July  28,  189S, 

governing  the  Navigation  of  the  Inland  Waterways  of  the  Em- 
pire.   Hertslet,  China,  No.  140,  726-727. 


358  ASIA 

Chinese  Inland  Waterways 

1902;  Sept.  5:  Shanghai.  Treaty.  China/Great  Britain.  Confirm- 
ing the  Eegulations  governing  Inland  Navigation  as  embodied 
in  the  Law  of  July  28,  1898,  &  September,  1898.  GB.  BFSP, 
Vol.  95,  54;  Hertslet,  China,  No.  28,  171. 

1903;  Oct.  8:  Shanghai.  Treaty.  China/United  States.  Art.  IV: 
Abolishing  the  Li-kin  Barriers  on  All  Roadways,  Railways,  & 
Waterways  throughout  the  Empire.  Art.  XII :  Confirming  the 
Stipulations  of  the  Law  of  July  28th,  1898,  &  September,  1898, 
establishing  and  governing  Universal  Freedom  of  Navigation  on 
Inland  Waterways  within  the  Imperial  Dominions.  Hertslet, 
China,  No.  100;  Malloy,  UST,  261-267. 

CHU-KIANG;  or  PEARL.     See  CANTON. 

EUPHRATES  See  also:     SHAT-EL-ARAB. 

1834;  Dec.  29:  Constantinople.  Law  (Firman).  Turkish  Govern- 
ment. Announcing  that  Permission  is  granted  British  Vessels  to 
participate  in  Fluvial  Navigation  &  Proclaiming  Appropriate  Pro- 
tective Measures.     Hertslet,  COM.  TR,  XIII,  838-39. 

(NOTE : 

(Order  despatched  by  the  Grand  Vizir,  Raouf,  September  13,  1842,  to 
the  Pasha  of  Aleppo  permitting  the  crews  of  British  vessels  navi- 
gating the  River  Euphrates  to  land  and  to  remain  ashore,  tempo- 
rarily.    Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  XIII,  839.) 

(NOTE: 

(Despatch  from  the  Grand  Vizir,  Raouf,  to  the  Pasha  of  Bagdad, 
April  2,  1846,  concerning  the  liberty  of  navigation  accorded 
British  vessels  upon  the  Rivers  Tigris  and  Euphrates.  Hertslet, 
COM.  TR.,  XIII,  840.) 

1861;  Jan.  15:  Constantinople.  Law  (Viziral  Order).  Turkish  Gov- 
ernment. Despatch  to  the  Governor-General  of  Bagdad  con- 
cerning the  Navigation  of  British  Vessels  upon  the  Tigris  &  Eu- 
phrates; Identical  Duties  to  those  levied  on  Ottoman  Vessels  to 
be  imposed.     Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  XIII,  845. 

FLY  RIVER  (ISLAND  OF  NEW  GUINEA) 

1895;  May  16:  The  Hague.  Treaty.  Great  Britain  &  The  Nether- 
lands. Designating  the  Boundaries  between  the  Possessions  of 
Great  Britain  &  The  Netherlands  in  the  Island  of  New  Guinea. 
Art.  V :  "  The  navigation  of  the  Fly  River  is  free  to  the  sub- 
jects of  both  Contracting  Powers, —  excepting  as  regards  the  car- 
riage of  war-like  stores, —  and  no  duty  shall  be  imposed  on  other 
goods  conveyed  by  that  river."    Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  20,  813. 


ASIA  359 

Grand  Canal 

GRAND;  or  IMPERIAL  CANAL. 

See  also :     CHINESE  INLAND  WATERWAYS. 
1895;  Apr.  17:  Sliimonoseki.     Treaty.     China/ Japan.     Art.  VI,  sect. 

2:   Freedom   of  Navigation   upon  the   Canal  granted   Japanese 

Merchant  Vessels.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  62. 
1898;    July   28:   Peking.     Law.     Government   of   China.     Universal 

Freedom  of  Navigation.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  138. 

GRAND  LAKE  OF  CAMBODIA  (or  SIAM) 

1870 ;  July  14 :  Saigon.  Treaty.  France/Siam.  Art.  I :  Relinquish- 
ment by  the  Kings  of  Siam  &  Cambodia  of  Exclusive  Jurisdiction 
over  the  Lake;  French  Fishing  Vessels  to  be  exempt  from  All 
Imposts.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  70,  291;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  II, 
XII,  630. 

HAN-KIANG.       See  also:     CHINESE  INLAND  WATERWAYS. 

1858;  June  18:  Tientsin.  Treaty.  China/United  States.  Art.  14: 
Navigation  of  the  River  granted  American  Vessels  between  the 
Port  of  Chao-Chau  &  the  Sea.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  94. 

1898;  July  28:  Peking.  Law.  Chinese  Government.  Universal 
Freedom  of  Navigation.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  138. 

HO ANG-HO ;  or  HWANG-HO. 

See  also :     CHINESE  INLAND  WATERWAYS. 
1898;    July    28:    Peking.     Law.     Chinese    Government.     Universal 

Freedom  of  Navigation.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  138. 
1904;    (no  precise  date) :   Peking.     Law.     Chinese  Imperial  Decree 

creating  Tsi-nan  (Chinan)  a  Treaty  Port.     Hertslet,  China,  No. 

211,  1211. 

HUANGPOO;  or  WOOSUNG.     See  WHANGPOO. 

HUN-HO     (Liao-ho  System). 

See  also :     CHINESE  INLAND  WATERWAYS. 
1898;    July    28:    Peking.     Law.     Chinese    Government.     Universal 

Freedom  of  Navigation.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  138. 
1903;  Oct.  8:  Shanghai.     Treaty.     China/Japan.     Art.  10:  Mukden 

established  as  Treaty  Port;  Access  granted  to  Japanese  Vessels 

in  conformity  with  Law  of  July  28,  1898.     Hertslet,  China,  No. 

66,  387. 
1903;   Oct.  8:   Shanghai.     Treaty.     China/United  States.     Art.   12: 

China  opens  the  Port  of  Mukden  to  Commerce  &  Navigation  in 


360  ASIA 

Hun-ho 

fulfillment  of  the  Imperial  Law  of  July   28,   1898.    Hertslet, 
China,  No.  100,  574;  Malloy,  UST,  261,  267. 

HUN-HO     (Pai-ho  System). 

See  also :    CHINESE  INLAND  WATERWAYS. 
1896;  July  21:  Peking.     Treaty.     China/ Japan.     Art.  V:  Permitting 

Japanese  Merchant   Vessels   to   ascend  the  River  to   Ta-Tung. 

Hertslet,  China,  No.  64 
1898 ;    July    28 :    Peking.     Law.     Chinese    Government.     Universal 

Freedom  of  Navigation.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  138. 

HWAI-HO.  See  also :     CHINESE  INLAND  WATERWAYS. 

1898 ;  July  28 :  Peking.  Law.  Chinese  Government.  Universal 
Freedom  of  Navigation.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  138. 

IMPERIAL  CANAL.    See  GRAND  CANAL. 

INDUS 

1843 ;  March  13 :  Law.  Notification  issued  by  the  Governor-General 
of  the  British  Government  in  India.  Freedom  of  Navigation 
for  the  Vessels  of  All  Nations  Instituted.  Martens,  NRG,  Ser. 
I,  V,  125. 

IRRAWADDY 

1894;  March  1:  London.  Convention.  China/Great  Britain.  Es- 
tablishing Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Fluvial  Navigation.  (Art. 
XII.)  Hertslet,  China,  No.  20,  107;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol. 
19,  163,  169. 

1896;  Jan.  15:  Agreement.  France/Great  Britain.  Art.  IV:  Con- 
cerning Enjoyment  of  Navigation.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  101. 

1897;  Feb.  4:  Peking.  Agreement.  China/Great  Britain.  Art. 
XII:  Regulating  Fluvial  Navigation.  Hertslet,  China,  No.  22, 
117. 

IRTISH 

1864;  Sept.  25/Oct.  7:  Tchuguchak.  Agreement.  China  &  Russia. 
Art.  I:  Establishing  Boundary  in  Thalweg.  Hertslet,  China, 
No.  83. 

1912;  Oct.  21/Nov.  3:  Urga.  Convention.  Mongolia  (China)  & 
Russia.  Art.  XII:  Navigation  freely  available  for  Russian  Ves- 
sels.   Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  Ill,  VII,  17. 

KARUN 

1888;  Oct.  30:  Teheran.  Law.  Notification  by  the  Persian  Govern- 
ment to  the  Representatives  of  the  Foreign  Powers  establishing 


ASIA  361 

Karun 

Freedom  of  Navigation :  "  The  Persian  Government,  with  a  view 
to  the  extension  of  commerce  &  wealth  in  her  provinces  &  the 
progress  of  agriculture  in  Khuzistan  &  Ahwaz,  has  ordered  that 
commercial  steamers  of  all  nations,  without  exception,  besides 
sailing  vessels  which  formerly  navigated  the  Karun  River,  under- 
take the  transport  of  merchandise  .  .  .  from  Muhammereh  (Mo- 
hammera)  to  the  dyke  at  Ahwaz."  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  79,  781; 
Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  18,  945.  (Commentary:  MOORE, 
ILD,  I,  652;  STATESMAN'S  YEAR  BOOK,  (1915),  1218.) 

UAH-HO.  See  also:    CHINESE  INLAND  WATERWAYS. 

1858;  June  26:  Tientsin.  Treaty.  China/Great  Britain.  Art.  II: 
Opening  the  Port  of  Newchwang  to  trade  &  navigation  with 
British  Vessels.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  6,  23. 

1861;  Sept.  2:  Tientsin.  Treaty.  China/Germany.  Art.  VI:  Free 
Navigation  between  the  Inland  Treaty  Ports  &  the  Sea.  Herts- 
let,  China,  No.  56. 

1863;  July  13:  Tientsin.  Treaty.  China/Denmark.  Art.  XI: 
Danish  Vessels  granted  Freedom  of  Navigation  to  trade  with 
Port  of  Newchwang.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  38. 

1863;  Oct.  6:  Tientsin.  Treaty.  China/Netherlands.  Art.  II: 
Granting  Dutch  Vessels  access  to  the  Open  River  Port.  Herts- 
let,  China,  No.  70. 

1864;  Oct.  10:  Tientsin.  Treaty.  China/Spain.  Art.  V:  Permit- 
ting Spanish  Vessels  to  frequent  the  Port  of  Newchwang. 
Hertslet,  China,  No.  91. 

1865;  Nov.  2:  Peking.  Treaty.  Belgium/China.  Art.  XI:  Free- 
dom of  Fluvial  Navigation.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  34,  226. 

1880 ;  March  31 :  Additional  Agreement.  China/Germany.  Regu- 
lating Navigation  on  the  River.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  57. 

1898 ;  July  28 :  Peking.  Law.  Chinese  Government.  Universal 
Freedom  of  Navigation.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  138. 

1903;  Oct.  8:  Shanghai.  Treaty.  China/Japan.  Art.  10:  Mukden 
opened  as  Treaty  Port;  Access  granted  to  Japanese  Vessels  in 
conformity  with  Law  of  July  28,  1898.  Hertslet,  China,  No.  66, 
387. 

1903;  Oct.  8:  Shanghai.  Treaty.  China/United  States.  Art.  12: 
Establishing  Mukden  as  Treaty  Port  and  Granting  Access  to 
American  Vessels.  Hertslet,  China,  No.  100,  574 ;  Malloy,  UST, 
261,  267. 

1905;  Dec.  22:  Aigun  (Aihun).  Additional  Agreement.  China/ 
Japan.  Art.  I:  Permitting  Trade  with  certain  River-Ports. 
Hertslet,  China,  No.  67,  393. 


362  ASIA 

Lwan-ho 

LWAN-HO.  See  also:    CHINESE  INLAND  WATERWAYS. 

1898;  July  28:  Peking.  Law.  Chinese  Government.  Universal 
Freedom  of  Navigation.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  138. 

MEKONG 

1884;  May.  11:  Tientsin.  Preliminary  Convention.  China  & 
France.  Art.  Ill:  France  secures  Enjoyment  of  Free  Traffic 
along  the  Mekong  Valley.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  44,  294. 

1886;  April  25:  Tientsin.  Treaty.  China/France.  Arts.  X,  XII: 
Recognizing  Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation;  Establishing 
Regulations  governing  Customs  Examination.  Hertslet,  China, 
No.  47,  306. 

1895;  June  20:  Peking.  Convention.  China/France.  Arts.  IV, 
IX :  Revising  Stipulations  of  Treaty  of  Tientsin,  April  25,  1886, 
regulating  Imposition  of  Customs  Duties  on  Goods  in  Transit. 
Hertslet,  China,  No.  53,  325. 

MIN-KIANG.       See  also:    CHINESE  INLAND  WATERWAYS. 
1842;  Aug.  29:  Nanking.     Treaty.     China/Great  Britain.     Art.  H: 

Preliminary  Provisions   governing   Foreign   Access   to   Port   of 

Foochow;    Privilege    of    Residence    granted    British    Subjects. 

Hertslet,  China,  No.  1,  3. 
1844;  Oct.  24:  Whampoa.     Treaty.     China/France.     Art.  II:  French 

Merchant- Vessels  permittted  to  enter  &  participate  in  Commerce. 

Hertslet,  China,  No.  39,  258 ;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  1,  VII,  431. 
1847;  March  20:  Canton.     Treaty.     China/Norway  &  Sweden.     Art. 

Ill:     Access  freely  granted  to  Swedish  &  Norwegian  Merchant- 
Vessels.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  93,  527. 
1858;     June     1/13:     Tientsin.     Treaty.     China/Russia.     Art.     Ill: 

Liberty  of  Navigation.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  81,  456. 
1858;  Jime  18:  Tientsin.     Treaty.     China/United  States.     Art.  14: 

Equal  Freedom  of  Access  &  Navigation.     Hertslet,  China,  No. 

94,  540,  545. 
1858;  June  26:   Tientsin.     Treaty.     China/Great  Britain.     Arts.   1, 

10:  Renewing  &  Confirming  Art.  II  of  Treaty  of  Nanking,  Aug. 

29,  1842,  permittting  Trade  &  Navigation.     Hertslet,  China,  No. 

6,  18. 
1861;     Sept.     2:      Tientsin.     Treaty.     China/Germany.     Art.      VI. 

Hertslet,  China,  No.  56,  331^  333. 
1863;     July     13:     Tientsin.     Treaty.     China/Denmark.     Art.     XI: 

Governing  the  Entry  &  Navigation  of  Danish  Merchant  Vessels. 

Hertslet,  China,  No.  38,  249-251. 


ASIA  363 

Min-kiang 

1863;     Oct.     6:     Tientsin.     Treaty.     China/Netherlands.     Art.     II: 

Navigation  of  Dutch  Vessels.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  70,  407. 
1864;  Oct  10:  Tientsin.     Treaty.     China/Spain.     Art.  V.     Hertslet, 

China,  No.  91,  512-13. 
1865;  Nov.  2:  Peking.     Treaty.     Belgium/China.     Art.  XI.     Herts- 
let,  China,  No.  34,  225. 
1866;  Oct.  26:  Peking.     Treaty.     China/Italy.     Art.  XI.     Hertslet, 

China,  No.  60,  354-55. 
1869;     Sept.     2:     Peking.     Treaty.     Austria-Hungary/China.     Art. 

VIII:  Freedom  of  Access  &  Navigation.     Hertslet,  China,  No. 

33,  215-16. 
1880;  March  31:  Peking.     Additional  Agreement.     China/Germany. 

Art.  I.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  57,  342. 
1898;    July    28:    Peking.     Law.     Chinese    Government.     Universal 

Freedom  of  Navigation.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  138. 

MONGOLIAN  WATEKWAYS 

Notably 

The  Rivers 

Amur ;  Orkhon ; 

Argun ;  Selenga ; 

Irtish ;  Yenisei. 

Onon; 

1912;  Oct.  21/Nov.  3:  Urga.  Convention.  China/Kussia.  Art. 
XII:  Freedom  of  Navigation  granted  to  Eussian  Vessels  on  All 
Mongolian  Waterways  entering  Russian  Dominions.  Martens, 
NRG,  Ser.  Ill,  VII,  17. 

MURRAY  (Australia) 

(NOTE: 

(The  Murray  River  System  is  strictly  an  Intercolonial  Waterway. 
Until  the  Act  of  Confederation,  January  1,  1901,  the  Riparian 
States,  exercising  an  independent  sovereignty,  regulated  the 
mutual  use  of  the  River  by  convention.  Hazen,  Europe  since 
1815,  532-33.) 

1873 ;  April  25 :  Sydney.  Law.  Act  sanctioned  by  the  Government 
of  New  South  Wales,  providing  for  the  Suspension  of  the  Impo- 
sition of  Customs  Duties  on  the  River  Murray.  Hertslet,  COM. 
TR.,  Vol.  17,  679. 

1873;  May  20/23:  Sydney.  Melbourne.  Convention.  New  South 
Wales  &  Victoria.     Concerning  the  Imposition  of  Duties  levied 


364  ASIA 

Murray  (Australia) 

on  Traffic  borne  by   the  Eiver   Murray.     Hertslet,   COM.   TK., 

Vol.  17,  681. 
1873;     May     27/June     6:     Sydney.     Adelaide.     Convention.     New 

South  Wales  &  South  Australia.     Eespecting  the  Levy  of  Duties 

upon   Commerce   transported   by   the   River   Murray.     Hertslet, 

COM.  TR,  Vol.  17,  684. 
1873;     June     25/July     7:     Adelaide.     Sydney.     Convention.     New 

South   Wales   &    South   Australia.     Eegnlating   Importation   by 

the  Eiver  Murray.     Hertslet,  COM.  TE.,  Vol.  17,  685. 

MUTAN-KIANG 

1905;  Dec.  22:  Aigun.     Additional  Agreement.     China/Japan.     Art. 

I :  Opening  Eiver  Ports  to  International  Commerce  &  Navigation. 

Hertslet,  China,  No.  67,  393. 

NONNA 

1905:  Dec.  22:  Aigun.     Additional  Agreement.     China/Japan.     Art. 

I:  Permitting  Commerce  &  Navigation.     Hertslet,   China,  No. 

67,  393. 

ONON 

1912 ;  Oct.  21/Nov.  3  :  Urga.  Convention.  China/Eussia.  Art.  XII : 
Freedom  of  Navigation  for  Eussian  Vessels  established.  Mar- 
tens, NEG,  Ser.  Ill,  VII,  17. 

OEKHON 

1860;  Nov.  2/14:  Peking.  Treaty.  China/Eussia.  Art.  V:  Pro- 
viding for  Privilege  of  Navigation  &  Trade.  Hertslet,  China, 
No.  82,  464. 

1912;  Oct.  21/Nov.  3:  TJrga.  Convention.  China/Eussia.  Art.  I: 
Opening  Navigation  to  Eussian  Vessels.  Martens,  NEG,  Ser. 
Ill,  VII,  17. 

PEAEL;  or  CHU-KIANG.     See  CANTON. 

PAI-HO;  or  PEI-HO. 

See  also :    CHINESE  INLAND  WATEEWAYS. 
1860;  Oct.  24:  Tientsin.     Treaty.     China/Great  Britain.     Art.  IV: 

Opening  Port  of  Tientsin  to  British  Commerce  &  Navigation. 

Hertslet,  China,  No.  8,  50. 
1860;    Oct.    25:    Tientsin.     Agreement.     China/France.     Art.    VII: 

Eecognizing  the  Eight  of  French  Subjects  to  participate  in  the 

Commerce    &    Navigation    of   the   Port    of    Tientsin.     Hertslet, 

China,  No.  42. 


ASIA  365 

Pai-ho 

1861;  Sept.  2:  Tientsin.  Treaty.  China/Germany.  Art.  VI 
Hertslet,  China,  No.  56,  331. 

1863;  July  13:  Tientsin.  Treaty.  China/Denmark.  Art.  XI 
Hertslet,  China,  No.  38,  249. 

1863;  Oct.  6:  Tientsin.  Treaty.  China/Netherlands.  Art.  II, 
Hertslet,  China,  No.  70,  407. 

1864;  Oct.  10:  Tientsin.  Treaty.  China/Spain.  Art.  V.  Hertslet, 
China,  No.  91,  512. 

1865;  Nov.  2:  Peking.  Treaty.  Belginm/China.  Art.  XL  HertS' 
let,  China,  No.  34,  225. 

1866;  Oct.  26:  Peking.  Treaty.  China/Italy.  Art.  XI.  Hertslet 
China,  No.  60,  354. 

1869;  Sept.  2:  Peking.  Treaty.  Austria-Hungary/China.  Art, 
VIII.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  33,  215. 

1880;  March  31:  Peking.  Agreement.  China/Germany.  Art.  I 
Hertslet,  China,  No.  57,  342. 

1898 ;  July  28 :  Peking.  Law.  Chinese  Government.  Hertslet 
China,  No.  138. 

1901 ;  July  22 :  Peking.  Treaty.  China/Great  Britain.  Pai-ho  Con 
servancy  Eegulations;  Provisions  governing  Imposition  of  Land 
ing  &  Wharfage  Dues.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  145,  750. 

1901;  Sept.  7:  Peking.  Convention.  China/Foreign  Powers:  Aus 
tria-Hungary,  Belgium,  France,  Germany,  Great  Britain,  Italy, 
Japan,  Netherlands,  Russia,  Spain,  &  the  United  States.  Arts, 
VI,  XI :  Stipulations  respecting  the  Improvement  of  the  Naviga- 
ble Channel.  Hertslet,  China,  No.  26,  128.  (Commentary 
China  Year  Book,  (1914),  687;  Despagnet,  Droit  Int.,  648.) 

1907;  Feb.  11:  Peking.  Law.  British  Regulations  respecting  Navi 
gation  &  Imposition  of  Landing  Dues.  Hertslet,  China,  No.  168, 
1096. 

PEI-KIANG.        See  also :    CHINESE  INLAND  WATERWAYS. 
1898 ;    July    28 :    Peking.     Law.     Chinese    Government.     Universal 
Freedom  of  Navigation.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  138. 

PO-YANG-LU  LAKE. 

See  also :     CHINESE  INLAND  WATERWAYS. 
1898;    July    28:    Peking.     Law.     Chinese    Government.     Universal 
Freedom  of  Navigation.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  138. 

RED.    See  SONGKOL 


360  ASIA 

San-fa 

SAN-FA 

1905;  Dec.  22:  Aigun.  Agreement.  China/Japan.  Art.  I:  Permit- 
ting Commerce  &  Navigation.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  67,  393. 

SEBOEKOE;  or  SEBOUKOU;  or  SIBUKU.     See  BOKNEO. 

SELENGA 

1912;    Oct.    21/Nov.    3:    Urga.     Convention.     China/Eussia.     Art. 

XII:  Establishing  Freedom  of  Navigation  for  Russian  Vessels. 

Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  Ill,  VII,  17. 

SHAT-EL-ARAB.  See  also:     EUPHRATES; 

TIGRIS. 

1834;  Dec.  29:  Constantinople.  Law  (Firman).  Turkish  Govern- 
ment. Permitting  British  Vessels  to  participate  in  Fluvial  Navi- 
gation, subject  to  Appropriate,  Protective  Regulations.  Hertslet, 
COM.  TR.,  XIII,  838-39. 

1861;  Jan.  15:  Constantinople.  Law  (Viziral  Order).  Governing 
Navigation  by  British  Vessels;  Identical  Duties  to  those  levied 
on  Ottoman  Vessels  to  be  imposed.  Heltslet,  COM.  TR.,  XIII, 
845. 

SI-KIANG.    See  WEST. 

SIANG-KIANG. 

See  also:    CHINESE  INLAND  WATERWAYS; 

Yang-tsze-Kiang  System. 
1898;    July    28:    Peking.     Law.     Chinese    Government.     Universal 
Freedom  of  Navigation.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  138. 

SONG-KI-KONG. 

See  also:    CHINESE  INLAND  WATERWAYS. 

1887;  June  26:  Peking.  Treaty.  China/France.  Art.  VI:  Recog- 
nizing Mutual  Enjoyment  of  Navigation.  Hertslet,  China,  No. 
48,  313. 

1898;  July  28:  Peking.  Law.  Chinese  Government.  Universal 
Freedom  of  Navigation.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  138. 

SONGK:OI;orRED 

1874 ;  March  15 :  Saigon.  Treaty.  Annam  &  France.  Art.  XI : 
Opening  Navigation  to  French  Vessels.  J.  Dupuis,  L'Ouverture 
du  Fleuve  Rouge  au  Commerce,  (Paris,  1879),  305. 


ASIA  367 

Sonkoi 

1874;  Aug.  31:   Saigon.     Treaty.     Annam  &  France.    Arts.  I-IV: 
Eegulating    Navigation    on    the    Songkoi    River.     J.    Dupuis, 
L'Ouverture  du  Fleuve  Rouge  .  .  .,  310, 
1884;    May    11:    Tientsin.     Convention.     China/France.     Art.    Ill: 
Recognized  Mutual  Participation  in  Fluvial  Transport.     Hertslet, 
China,  No.  44,  294. 
1885;   June  9:    Tientsin.     Treaty.     China/France.     Art.   V:   Fiscal 
Regulations;  Establishment  of  Customs  Bureaux  at  the  Fron- 
tier.    Hertslet,  China,  No.  46,  298. 
1886;  April  25:  Tientsin.     Treaty.     China/France.     Arts.  X,  XII: 
Recognizing  Reciprocal   Freedom   of   Navigation;    Establishing 
Regulations    governing    Customs    Examination.     Clercq,    RTF, 
Vol.  17,  164;  Hertslet,  China,  No.  47,  306. 
1887;    June    26:    Peking.     Additional    Convention.     China/France. 
Art.  II:  Designating  River  Ports  open  to  French  Commerce. 
Hertslet,  China,  No.  48. 
1895;    June    20:    Peking.     Convention.     China/France.     Art.    IV: 
Modifying  Stipulations  embodied  in  Art.  IX  of  Treaty  of  Tien- 
tsin, April  25,  1886,  governing  Commercial  Privileges  &  the  Im- 
position of  Duties  on  Goods  in  Transit.     Hertslet,  China,  No. 
53,  325. 
1896;   Jan.   15:   London.     Agreement.     France/Great  Britain.     Art. 
IV :  Providing  that  any  privileges  or  advantages  secured  by  either 
in  the  Provinces  of  Yunnan  or  Szechuen  shall  be  shared  alike. 
Hertslet,  China,  No.  101. 

SUNGARI  T  TT    -o 

1858;  May  16/28:  Aigun.  Treaty.  China/Russia.  Arts.  I-ii:  Re- 
ciprocal Freedom  of  Navigation;  Participation  by  Foreign  Ves- 
sels explicitly  Prohibited.  Hertslet,  China,  No.  80,  454.  (Com- 
mentary: H.  B.  MORSE,  The  International  Relations  of  the 
Chinese  Empire,  pg.  477.) 

1860 ;  Nov.  2/14 :  Peking.  Treaty.  China/Russia.  Arts.  I,  V :  De- 
marcation of  Boundaries;  Freedom  of  Navigation  &  Commerce. 
Hertslet,  China,  No.  82,  462. 

1881;  Feb.  12/24;  St.  Petersburg.  Treaty.  China/Russia.  Art.  18: 
Confirming  the  Reciprocal  Rights  of  Navigation  as  embodied  in 
Art.  I  of  the  Treaty  of  Aigun,  May  16/28,  1858.  Hertslet,  China, 
No.  85,  490. 

1905;  Dec.  22:  Aigun.  Additional  Agreement.  China/Japan.  Ac- 
cess secured  for  Commercial  Purposes.  Hertslet,  China,  No.  67, 
393. 


368  ASIA 

Tatsich 

TATSICH.     See  YUNG-KIANG. 

TIGRIS.  See   also:     SHAT-EL-ARAB. 

1846 ;  April  2 :  Constantinople.     Law.     Turkish  Government.     Viziral 

Order  concerning  Navigation  by  British  Vessels  upon  the  River 

Tigris.     Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  XIII,  840. 
1861 ;  Jan.  15  :  Constantinople.     Law.     Turkish  Government.     Viziral 

Order  governing  Navigation  by  British  Vessels ;  Identical  Duties 

to  those  levied  on   Ottoman  Vessels   to   be   imposed.     Hertslet, 

COM.  TR.,  XIII,  845. 

TSIEN-TANG;  or  CHIEN-TANG. 

See  also :     CHINESE  INLAND  WATERWAYS. 

1898 ;  July  28 :  Peking.  Law.  Chinese  Government.  Universal 
Freedom  of  Navigation.  Hertslet,  China,  No.  138.  (Commen- 
tary: GB.  Dipl.  &  Consular  Reports,  No.  5305,  pg.  6.) 

TSO-KIANG.       See  also :    CHINESE  INLAND  WATERWAYS. 

1887 ;  June  26 :  Peking.  Treaty.  China/France.  Art.  VI :  Recipro- 
cal Freedom  of  Navigation,  including  the  Affluents  Cao-Bang  & 
Song-ki-kong.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  48,  313. 

1898;  July  28:  Peking.  Law.  Chinese  Government.  Universal 
Freedom  of  Navigation.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  138. 

1905 ;  April  (no  date) :  Canton.  Law.  Regulations  governing  Com- 
merce &  Navigation  on  West  River  System.  Hertslet,  China, 
No.  159,  1035. 

TUMEN.  See  also :    CHINESE  INLAND  WATERWAYS. 

1898;  July  28.  Peking.  Law.  Chinese  Government.  Universal 
Freedom  of  Navigation.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  138. 

1905;  Dec.  22:  Aigun.  Additional  Agreement.  China/Japan.  Ac- 
cess secured  for  Commercial  Purposes.  Hertslet,  China,  No.  67, 
393. 

1909;  Sept.  4:  Agreement.  China  &  Japan.  Art.  I:  Demarcation 
of  International  Boundary  in  Thalweg.  Art.  V:  Regulating  the 
Establishment  of  Ferries.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  102,  391. 

TUNG-KIANG.     See  also :     CHINESE  INLAND  WATERWAYS. 

1898;  July  28:  Peking.  Law.  Chinese  Government.  Universal 
Freedom  of  Navigation.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  138. 

1902 ;  Sept.  5 :  Shanghai.  Treaty.  China/Great  Britain.  Art.  VIII, 
sect.  12 :  Opening  the  Port  of  Hwei-chaufu  (Hui-chow,  or  Wai- 
chow)  to  Commerce  &  Navigation.    Hertslet,  China,  No.  28,  180. 


ASIA  369 

Tung-Ting-Lu  Lake 
TUNG-TING-LU  LAKE. 

See  also:     CHINESE  INLAND  WATERWAYS. 
1898;    July    28:    Peking.     Law.     Chinese    Government.     Universal 
Freedom  of  Navigation.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  138. 

USSURI 

1858;  May  16/28:  Aigun.  Treaty.  China/Eussia.  Arts.  I-II: 
Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Navigation;  Participation  by  Foreign 
Vessels  explicitly  Prohibited.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  80,  454. 

1860 ;  Nov.  2/14 :  Peking.  Treaty.  China/Russia.  Arts.  I,  V :  De- 
marcation of  Boundaries;  Freedom  of  Navigation  &  Commerce. 
Hertslet,  China,  No.  82,  462. 

1881 ;  Feb.  12/24 :  St.  Petersburg.  Treaty.  China/Russia.  Art.  18 : 
Confirming  the  Reciprocal  Rights  of  Navigation  as  instituted  by 
Art.  I  of  Treaty  of  Aigun,  May  16/28,  1858.  Hertslet,  China, 
No.  85,  490. 

WEST;  or  SI-KIANG. 

See  also:    CHINESE  INLAND  WATERWAYS; 

CANTON  RIVER. 

1842;  Aug.  29:  Nanking.  Treaty.  China/Great  Britain.  Art.  II. 
Recognized  Freedom  of  Navigation  within  Estuary.  Hertslet, 
China,  No.  I,  7. 

1844;  Oct.  24:  Whampoa.  Treaty.  China/France.  Art.  II:  Per- 
mission extended  to  French  Trading  Vessels  within  the  Estuary. 
Hertslet,  China,  No.  39,  258;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I,  VII,  431. 

1847;  March  20:  Canton.  Treaty.  China/Sweden  &  Norway.  Art. 
Ill:  Access  secured  by  Sweden  &  Norway  as  far  as  Port  of 
Kwang-chow.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  93,  527. 

1858;  June  1/13:  Tientsin.  Treaty.  China/Russia.  Art.  Ill: 
Russian  Merchant  Vessels  granted  Entry.  Hertslet,  China,  No. 
81,  456. 

1858;  June  26:  Tientsin.  Treaty.  China/Great  Britain.  Arts.  I, 
X:  Renewing  &  Confirming  Dispositions  of  Art.  II  of  Treaty 
of  Nanking,  Aug.  29,  1842.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  6,  18. 

1865;  Nov.  2:  Peking.  Treaty.  Belgium/China.  Art.  XL  Hert- 
slet, China,  No.  34,  225. 

1866;  Oct.  26:  Peking.  Treaty.  China/Italy.  Art.  XL  Hertslet, 
China,  No.  60,  354. 

1869;  Sept.  2:  Peking.  Treaty.  Austria-Hungary/China.  Art. 
VIII:  Freedom  of  Access  &  Navigation.  Hertslet,  China,  No. 
83,  215. 


370  ASIA 

West 

1880;  March  31:  Peking.  Additional  Agreement.  China/Germany. 
Art.  I.    Hertslet,  China,  No.  57. 

1885;  June  9:  Tientsin.  Treaty.  China/France.  Art.  V:  Kegu- 
lating  Commercial  Navigation  in  the  Upper  Course  &  upon  Af- 
fluent Streams.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  46. 

1886;  April  25:  Tientsin.  Treaty.  China/France.  Art.  I:  Eecog- 
nizing  Reciprocal  Freedom  of  Commercial  Navigation;  Regula- 
tions governing  the  Establishment  &  Administration  of  Customs 
Bureaux.  Clercq,  RTF,  Vol.  17,  164;  Hertslet,  China,  No.  47, 
306. 

1887;  June  26:  Peking.  Additional  Convention.  China/France. 
Art.  II:  Designating  River  Ports  open  to  French  Commerce. 
Hertslet,  China,  No.  48,  311. 

1895 ;  June  20 :  Peking.  Convention.  China/France.  Art.  II :  Re- 
vising Art.  II  of  Convention  of  Peking,  June  26,  1887,  respect- 
ing Commercial  Privileges.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  53,  325. 

1896 ;  Jan.  15 :  London.  Agreement.  France/Great  Britain.  Art. 
IV:  Providing  that  any  privileges  or  advantages  secured  by 
either  Power  in  the  Provinces  of  Yunnan  or  Szechuen  shall  be 
shared  alike.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  101. 

1897;  Feb.  4:  Agreement.  China/Great  Britain.  Granting  Access 
to  the  River  Port  of  Wuchow.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  22,  118. 

1898 ;  July  28 :  Peking.  Law.  Chinese  Government.  Universal 
Freedom  of  Navigation.  Hertslet,  China,  No.  138.  (NOTE: 
Regulations  governing  Navigation ;  Hertslet,  China,  No.  159,  pg. 
1035.) 

1902 ;  Sept.  5 :  Shanghai.  Treaty.  China/Great  Britain.  Art.  VIII, 
sect.  12 ;  Art.  X :  Establishing  Kong-moon  as  Treaty  Port ;  Per- 
mitting Access  of  Merchant  Vessels.  Hertslet,  China,  No.  28, 
179,  181. 

1904 ;  March  23 :  Kong-moon.  Law.  Customs  Regulations  applic- 
able to  Merchant  Vessels  navigating  the  River.  Hertslet,  China, 
No.  201,  1182. 

1905 ;  April  (no  date) :  Canton.  Law.  Regulations  issued  by  the 
Chinese  Imperial  Maritime  Customs  governing  Commerce  &  Nav- 
igation on  the  West  River  System.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  98,  449; 
Hertslet,  China,  No.  159,  1035-39. 

WHANGPOO;  or  HUANGPOO;  or  WOOSUNG. 

See  also :     CHINESE  INLAND  WATERWAYS. 
1842;  Aug.  29:  Nanking.     Treaty.     China/Great  Britain.     Art.  II: 


ASIA  371 

Whangpoo 

Kecogiiized  Freedom  of  Access  &  Navigation  for  Commercial 
Vessels.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  I,  7. 

1844;  Oct.  24:  Whampoa.  Treaty.  China/France.  Art.  II:  Sim- 
ilar Privileges  granted  to  French  Merchant  Vessels.  Hertslet, 
China,  No.  39,  258 ;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I,  VII,  431. 

1847;  March  20:  Canton.  Treaty.  China/Sweden  &  Norway.  Art. 
Ill :  Access  to  Port  of  Shanghai  secured  for  Norwegian  &  Swed- 
ish Merchant  Vessels.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  93,  527. 

1858;  June  1/13:  Tientsin.  Treaty.  China/Russia.  Art.  Ill: 
Russian  Merchant  Vessels  granted  Entry.  Hertslet,  China,  No. 
81,  456. 

1858 ;  June  26  :  Tientsin.  Treaty.  China/Great  Britain.  Renewing 
&  Confirming  Provisions  of  Art.  II  of  Treaty  of  Nanking,  Aug. 
29,  1842.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  6,  18. 

1861;  Sept.  2:  Tientsin.  Treaty.  China/Germany.  Art.  VI:  Hert- 
slet, China,  No.  56,  331,  333. 

1863;  July  13:  Tientsin.  Treaty.  China/Denmark.  Art.  XI. 
Hertslet,  China,  No.  38,  249. 

1863;  Oct.  6:  Tientsin.  Treaty.  China/Netherlands.  Art.  II. 
Hertslet,  China,  No.  70,  407. 

1864;  Oct.  10:  Tientsin.  Treaty.  China/Spain.  Art.  V.  Hertslet, 
China,  No.  91,  512. 

1865;  Nov.  2:  Peking.  Treaty.  Belgium/China.  Art.  XL  Hert- 
slet, China,  No.  34,  226. 

1866;  Oct.  26:  Peking.  Treaty.  China/Italy.  Art.  XL  Hert- 
slet, China,  No.  60,  354. 

1869;  Sept.  2:  Peking.  Treaty.  Austria-Hungary/China.  Art. 
VIII:  Freedom  of  Access  &  Navigation.  Hertslet,  China,  No. 
33,  215. 

1880;  March  31:  Peking.  Additional  Agreement.  China/Germany. 
Art.  I.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  57,  343. 

1895 ;  April  17 :  Shimonoseki.  Treaty.  China/Japan.  Art.  VI,  sect. 
2 :  Freedom  of  Navigation  for  Japanese  Vessels  on  Whangpoo 
River  between  the  Ports  of  Shanghai  &  Soochow  recognized. 
Hertslet,  China,  No.  62,  365. 

1896;  Oct.  19:  Peking.  Agreement.  China/Japan.  Additional 
Stipulations  concerning  the  participation  by  Japanese  Vessels  in 
Commercial  Navigation  on  the  Whangpoo  River.  Hertslet, 
China,  No.  65. 

1898;  July  28:  Peking.  Law.  Chinese  Government.  Universal 
Freedom  of  Navigation.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  138. 

1901;  Jan.  17:  Shanghai.     Law.     Chinese  Government.     Regulations 


372  ASIA 

Whangpoo 

governing  Navigation  on  the  River  &  in  the  Harbor  of  Shanghai. 
Hertslet,  China,  No.  197. 

1901;  Sept.  7:  Peking,  Convention.  China/Foreign  Maritime 
Powers:  Austria-Hungary,  Belgium,  France,  Germany,  Great 
Britain,  Italy,  Japan,  Netherlands,  Russia,  Spain,  &  the  United 
States.  Arts.  VI,  XI:  Provisions  concerning  the  Improvement 
&  Maintenance  of  the  Navigable  Channel.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  94, 
709 ;  Hertslet,  China,  No.  26,  128,  130.  (Commentary:  CHINA 
YEAR  BOOK  (1914),  687;  DESPAGNET,  Droit  Int.,  648.) 

1902;  March  6:  London.  Law.  British  Government.  Order  in 
Council  in  conformity  with  Section  XI  of  the  Foreign  Jurisdic- 
tion Act  of  1890  governing  Navigation  on  the  River  Whangpoo 
and  providing  for  the  Improvement  &  Maintenance  of  the  Navig- 
able Channel.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  95,  620;  Hertslet,  China,  No. 
148,  485. 

1907;  Sept.  27:  Peking.  Convention.  China/Foreign  Maritime 
Powers:  Austria-Hungary,  Belgium,  France,  Germany,  Great 
Britain,  Italy,  Japan,  Netherlands,  Russia,  Spain,  &  the  United 
States  of  America.  Rectification  &  Maintenance  of  the  Navig- 
able Channel.  GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  98,  1052;  Hertslet,  China,  No. 
31,  199;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  Ill,  VI,  685,  688. 

(NOTE : 

(Regulations  governing  navigation  in  the  lower  course  of  the  Woo- 
sung  (Whangpoo)  River  in  the  vicinity  of  the  Inner  &  Outer 
Bars  were  promulgated  at  Peking,  April  10,  1907.  Hertslet, 
China,  No.  171,  1102.) 

1911;  April  28:  Peking.  Law.  Navigation  Regulations  issued  by 
the  Authority  of  the  King  of  Great  Britain  under  sanction  of 
Article  155  of  the  Chinese  Order  in  Council  of  1904  governing 
the  Transit  of  Vessels  through  the  River,  to  &  from  the  Port 
of  Shanghai.     GB.  BFSP,  Vol.  105,  918. 

WU-KIANG.         See  also:     CHINESE  INLAND  WATERWAYS. 
1898;    July    28:    Peking.     Law.     Chinese    Government,    Universal 
Freedom  of  Navigation.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  138. 

YALU.  See  also :     CHINESE  INLAND  WATERWAYS. 

1898 ;    July    28 :    Peking.     Law.     Chinese    Government.     Universal 

Freedom  of  Navigation.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  138. 
1903;  Oct.  8:  Shanghai.     Treaty.     China/United  States.     Art.  XII: 

Opening  the  Port  of  Antung  to  Commerce  &  Navigation  in  con- 


ASIA  3Y3 

Yalu 

formity  with  the  Imperial  Law  of  July  28,  1898.     Hertslet,  China, 
No.  100;  Malloy,  UST,  261,  267. 

YANG-TSZE-KIANG. 

See  also :    CHINESE  INLAND  WATERWAYS. 

1842;  Aug.  29:  Nanking.  Treaty.  China/Great  Britain.  Art.  II: 
Eecognized  Freedom  of  Access  &  Navigation  for  Merchant  Ves- 
sels to  Port  of  Shashi.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  I,  7. 

1844;  Oct.  24:  Whampoa.  Treaty.  China/France.  Art.  II:  Sim- 
ilar Privileges  granted  to  French  Vessels  engaged  in  Commerce. 
Hertslet,  China,  No.  39,  258;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I,  VII,  431. 

1858;  June  26:  Tientsin.  Treaty.  China/Great  Britain.  Art.  X: 
Access,  likewise,  granted  to  Merchant  Vessels  as  far  as  Port  of 
Chin-kiang :  "  British  Merchant  Vessels  shall  have  authority  to 
trade  on  the  Great  River  ( Yang-tsze-kiang) ."  Hertslet,  China, 
No.  6,  18 ;  Hertslet,  COM.  TR,  XI,  89. 

1858 ;  June  27 :  Treaty.  China/France.  Rendering  the  Port  of  Nan- 
king, likewise,  accessible  to  Merchant  Vessels.  Hertslet,  China, 
No.  40,  272. 

1861 ;  Jan,  20 :  Agreement.  China/Great  Britain.  Navigation  Regu- 
lations.    Hertslet,  COM.  TR  XI,  668. 

1861 ;  Sept.  2 :  Tientsin.  Treaty.  China/Germany.  Art.  VI :  Hert- 
slet, China,  No.  56,  331,  333. 

1863;  July  13:  Tientsin.  Treaty.  China/Denmark.  Art.  XI: 
Hertslet,  China,  No.  38,  249. 

1863;  Oct.  6:  Tientsin.  Treaty.  China/Netherlands.  Art  IL 
Hertslet,  China,  No.  70,  407. 

1864;  Oct.  10:  Tientsin.  Treaty.  China/Spain.  Art.  V.  Hertslet, 
China,  No.  91,  512. 

1865;  Nov  2:  Peking.  Treaty.  Belgium/China.  Art.  XL  Hert- 
slet, China,  No.  34,  226. 

1866;  Oct.  26:  Peking.  Treaty.  China/Italy.  Art.  XL  Hertslet, 
China,  No.  60,  354. 

1869;  Sept.  2:  Peking.  Treaty.  Austria-Hungary/China.  Art. 
VIII:  Freedom  of  Access  &  Navigation.  Hertslet,  China,  No. 
33,  215. 

1876;  Sept.l3:  Chefoo.  Agreement.  China/Great  Britain.  Section 
III,  Art.  I:  Designating  Additional  Ports  on  the  River  Yang- 
tsze  where  Vessels  may  enter.  Hertslet,  China,  No.  12,  77 ;  Hert- 
slet, COM.  TR  Vol.  17,  279. 

1880;  March  31:  Peking.  Supplementary  Convention.  China/Ger- 
many.   Hertslet,  China,  No.  57,  343. 


3V4  ASIA 

Yang-tsze-kiang 

1890;  March  31 :  Peking.  Additional  Agreement.  China/Great  Brit- 
ain. Arts.  I-Y:  Regulating  Navigation  &  Designating  tbe 
Ports  accessible  to  British  Vessels.  Hertslet,  China,  No.  18,  94; 
Hertslet,  COM.  TR.,  Vol.  18,  290. 

1895;  April  17:  Shimonoseki.  Treaty.  China/ Japan.  Art.  VI: 
Recognized  Freedom  of  Navigation  for  Japanese  Merchant  Ves- 
sels on  the  Upper  Yang-tsze  between  the  ports  of  Ichang  &  Chung- 
king.    Hertslet,  China,  No.  62. 

1896;  July  21:  Peking.  Treaty.  China/Japan.  Art.  V:  Freedom 
of  Navigation  for  Japanese  Vessels;  Designating  Additional 
Ports  open  to  Commerce.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  64. 

1898 ;  July  28 :  Peking.  Law.  Chinese  Government.  Universal 
Freedom  of  Navigation.  Hertslet,  China,  No.  138.  (Comment- 
ary:   REINSCH,  World  Politics,  150-151.) 

1898 ;  August  (no  date)  :  Peking.  Law.  Chinese  Government.  Spe- 
cial Regulations  governing  participation  in  the  Commerce  & 
Navigation  of  the  River  Yang-tsze.  (Arts.  I-X.)  Hertslet, 
China,  No.  139,  723-726. 

1902;  Sept.  5:  Shanghai.  Treaty.  China/Great  Britain.  Art.  V: 
Providing  for  the  Establishment  &  Maintenance  of  Appliances  for 
hauling  Vessels  through  the  Rapids  of  the  Upper  Yang-tsze. 
Hertslet,  China,  No.  28,  173. 

1903 ;  Oct.  8 :  Shanghai.  Treaty.  China/ Japan.  Art.  II :  Erection 
of  Apparatus  for  facilitating  Navigation  on  the  Upper  Yang-tsze, 
Hertslet,  China,  No.  66. 

1907;  May  14:  Peking,  Treaty.  China/Great  Britain.  Regulating 
the  Imposition  of  Landing  &  Wharfage  Dues.  Hertslet,  China, 
No.  172,  1103 


YENISEI 

1912 ;  Oct  21/Nov.  3  :  Urga.  Convention.  China/Russia.  Art.  XII : 
Establishing  Freedom  of  Navigation  for  Russian  Vessels.  Mar- 
tens, NRG,  Ser.  Ill,  VII,  17. 

YUNG-KIANG;  or  TATSICH. 

See  also:  CHINESE  INLAND  WATERWAYS. 

1842;  Aug.  29:  Nanking.  Treaty.  China/Great  Britain.  Art.  II: 
Recognized  Freedom  of  Access  &  Navigation  for  Merchant  Ves- 
sels.    Hertslet,  China,  No.  I,  7, 


ASIA  375 

Yung-kiang 

1844;  Oct.  24:  Whampoa.  Treaty.  China/France.  Art.  II:  Sim- 
ilar Privileges  granted  to  Merchant  Vessels  under  the  French 
Flag.  Hertslet,  China,  No.  39,  258 ;  Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  I,  VII, 
431. 

1847;  March  20:  Canton.  Treaty.  China/Sweden  &  Norway.  Art. 
Ill :  Access  to  Port  of  Ningpo  secured  for  Norwegian  &  Swedish 
Vessels.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  93,  527. 

1858;  June  1/13:  Tientsin.  Treaty.  China/Russia.  Art.  Ill: 
Russian  Merchant  Vessels  granted  Entry.  Hertslet,  China,  No. 
81,  456. 

1858 ;  June  26 :  Tientsin.  Treaty.  China/Great  Britain.  Renewing 
&  Confirming  Provisions  embodied  in  Article  II  of  Treaty  of 
Nanking,  Aug.  20,  1842.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  6,  18,  23. 

1861;  Sept.  2:  Tientsin.  Treaty.  China/Germany.  Art.  VI:  Ger- 
man Vessels  granted  Entry.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  56,  331,  333. 

1863;  July  13:  Tientsin.  Treaty.  China/Denmark.  Art.  XL 
Hertslet,  China,  No.  38,  249. 

1863;  Oct.  6:  Tientsin.  Treaty.  China/Netherlands.  Art.  II: 
Hertslet,  China,  No.  70,  407. 

1864;  Oct.  10:  Tientsin.  Treaty.  China/Spain.  Art.  V:  Hertslet, 
China,  No.  91,  512. 

1865;  Nov.  2:  Peking.  Treaty.  Belgium/China.  Art.  XL  Hert- 
slet, China,  No.  34,  226. 

1866;  Oct.  26:  Peking.  Treaty.  China/Italy.  Art.  XL  Hertslet, 
China,  No.  60,  354. 

1869;  Sept.  2:  Peking.  Treaty.  Austria-Hungary/China.  Art. 
VIII:  Freedom  of  Access  &  Navigation.  Hertslet,  China,  No. 
33,  215. 

1880;  March  31:  Peking.  Supplementary  Convention.  China/Ger- 
many.    Art.  I.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  57,  343. 

1898;  July  28:  Peking.  Law.  Chinese  Government.  Universal 
Freedom  of  Navigation.     Hertslet,  China,  No.  138. 

ZATSAN;  or  TZAISAN-NOR;  LAKE 

1864;  Sept.  25/Oct.  7:  Tchuguchak.     Agreement.     China  &  Russia. 

Art.  I :  Demarcation  of  Boundary  along  Lake  Shore.     Hertslet, 

China,  No.  83. 
1912;  Oct.  21/Nov.  3:  Urga.     Convention.     China/Russia..     Mutual 

Liberty  of  Navigation    Martens,  NRG,  Ser.  Ill,  VII,  17. 


TEKTATIVE  PROVISIONS  EEGULATING  CERTAIN 
EUROPEAN  WATERWAYS 

BUG 

1919;  June  28:  Versailles.  Treaty.  France,  Great  Britain,  Italy, 
Japan,  Poland,  United  States  of  America.  Art.  18 :  Adoption 
of  Provisions  identical  with  Stipulations  embodied  in  Arts.  332- 
337  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace  with  Germany, —  June  28,  1919, —  for 
Regulating  Navigation.  American  Association  for  International 
Conciliation  (AAIC),  No.  141,  933;  New  York  Times  Current 
History  (N.  Y.  Times  C.  H.),  Aug.,  1919,  pg.  280. 

CHLOP  LAI^ 

1919;  June  28:  Versailles.  Treaty,  principal  powers:  France, 
Great  Britain,  Italy,  Japan,  United  States  of  America;  allied  & 
ASSOCL^TED  POWERS :  Belgium,  Bolivia,  Brazil,  China,  Cuba, 
Czecho-Slovakia,  Ecuador,  Greece,  Guatemala,  Haiti,  Hedjaz, 
Honduras,  Liberia,  Nicaragua,  Panama,  Peru,  Poland,  Portugal, 
Roumania,  Serbo-Croat-Slovene  State,  Siam,  Ui-uguay  and  Ger- 
many. Art.  27,  sec.  7 :  Adoption  of  Median  Line  as  Interna- 
tional Boundary  between  Germany  &  Poland.  AAIC,  No.  142, 
961;  N.  Y.  Times  C.  H.,  Aug.,  1919,  pg.  292. 

DANUBE 

1919 ;  June  28 :  Versailles.  Treaty.  Allied  &  Associated  Powers  and 
Germany.  Part  XII,  Section  1,  Arts.  321-327 :  General  Provi- 
sions regulating  Inland  Waterways.  Section  2,  Arts.  331-339 : 
International  Navigation  Established  &  Regulated.  Sec.  2,  Arts. 
346-353:  Special  Stipulations  relating  to  resumption  of  Power 
by  the  European  Commission  &  to  the  Institution  of  an  Inter- 
national Commission.  AAIC,  No.  142,  1148-1155,  1158-59;  N. 
Y.  Times  C.  H.,  Aug.,  1919,  354-55,  357-58. 

{Commentary:  Objections  of  the  German  Government  to  certain 
stipulations  of  the  Treaty  of  Versailles:  urging  German  repre- 
sentation on  the  Danubian  Commission.  AAIC,  No.  143,  pp. 
84-85.) 

1919;  Sept.  10:  St.  Germain-en-Laye.  Treaty.  Allied  &  Associated 
Powers  and  Austria.  Part  XII,  sect.  1,  Arts.  284-289:  Gen- 
eral Provisions  governing  Inland  Navigation.  Art.  291:  Spe- 
cial Stipulations  concerning  Navigation  of  the  Danube.  Art. 
302:  Institution  of  International  Supervisory  Commission  gov- 
erning Danubian  Navigation.  Senate  Doc,  No.  92,  pgs.  177-79, 
180-81,  185,  66th  U.  S.  Congress,  1st  Session. 
376 


TENTATIVE    PEO VISIONS  377 

DANUBE-RHINE  PROJECTED  CANAL 

1919 ;  June  28 :  Versailles.  Treaty.  Allied  &  Associated  Powers  and 
Germany.  Part  XII,  Sec.  2,  Chap,  iii,  Art.  331 :  Rights  of  In- 
ternational Navigation  to  be  Recognized.  Art.  353:  Regula- 
tions prescribed  in  Arts.  332-338  of  Part  XII  to  govern  Naviga- 
tion on  completion  of  the  Canal.  AAIC,  No.  142,  1152-53,  1159 ; 
N.  Y.  Times  C.  H.,  Aug.,  1919,  354,  358. 

1919;  Sept.  10:  St.  Germain-en-Laye.  Treaty.  Allied  &  Associated 
Powers  and  Austria.  Part  XII,  Sect.  1,  Arts.  284-289:  Gen- 
eral Provisions  governing  Inland  Navigation.  Art.  291:  Spe- 
cial Stipulations  respecting  Navigation  of  the  Canal.  Senate 
Doc,  No.  92,  pgs.  177-79,  180-81,  66th  U.  S.  Congress,  1st  Sess. 

ELBE 

1919 ;  June  28 :  Versailles.  Treaty.  Allied  &  Associated  Powers  and 
Germany.  Arts.  321-327:  Regulations  governing  Navigation 
and  Commerce.  Arts.  331-339:  Establishment  and  Supervision 
of  International  Navigation.  Art.  340:  Establishment  &  Con- 
stitution of  the  International  Commission  supervising  Naviga- 
tion. Arts.  343-345 :  Special  Regulations  applicable  to  the 
Commission.  Arts.  363-364:  Special  Rights  accorded  to  the 
Czecho-Slovak  State.  Art.  282,  sec.  9 :  Renewal  of  the  Con- 
vention of  June  22,  1861,  concerning  the  Redemption  of  the 
Stade  Toll.  AAIC,  No.  142,  1101,  1148-1155,  1156-57,  1165;  N. 
Y.  Times  C.  H.,  Aug.,  1919,  340,  354-58,  359. 

{Commentary :  Declaration  by  German  Government  of  vital  interest 
in  maintaining  fluvial  transit  with  Czecho-Slovakia.  AAIC,  No. 
143,  pp.  84-85.) 

KUDDOW 

1919 ;  June  28 :  Versailles.  Treaty.  Allied  &  Associated  Powers  and 
Germany.  Art.  27,  sec.  7 :  Thalweg  Boundary  between  Germany 
&  Poland.  AAIC,  No.  142,  961-62;  N.  Y.  Times  C  H.,  Aug., 
1919,  392. 

LONKENER  LAKE 

1919 ;  June  28 :  Versailles.  Treaty.  Allied  &  Associated  Powers  and 
Germany.  Art.  100:  Boundary  between  Germany  &  Poland  es- 
tablished on  Median  Line.  AAIC,  No.  142,  1011;  N.  Y.  Times 
C  H.,  Aug.,  1919,  pg.  310. 

MOLDATT 

1919 ;  June  28 :  Versailles.  Treaty.  Allied  &  Associated  Powers  and 
Germany.  Arts.  321-327:  Commerce  &  Navigation  Regula- 
tions,   Apts.  331-339:    Institution  of  International  Navigation. 


378  TENTATIVE    PROVISIONS 

AAIC,  No.  142,  1148-1155;  N.  Y.  Times  C.  H.,  Aug.,  1919, 
354-56. 

MORAVA 

1919;  Sept.  10:  St.  Germain-en-Laye.  Treaty.  Allied  &  Associated 
Powers  and  Austria.  Part  XII,  Sect.  1,  Arts.  284^89:  General 
Provisions  governing  Inland  Navigation.  Art.  291:  Special 
Stipulations  regarding  Navigation  of  Morava.  Senate  Doc,  No. 
92,  pgs.  177-79,  180-81,  66th  U.  S.  Congress,  1st  Sess. 

MOSELLE 

1919 ;  June  28 :  Versailles.  Treaty.  Allied  &  Associated  Powers  and 
Germany.  Arts.  321-327:  Provisions  governing  Commerce  and 
Navigation.  Art.  362:  Option  of  Extending  Jurisdiction  of 
Central  Rhine  Commission  to  the  Moselle  below  the  Franco- 
Luxemburg  Frontier.  AAIC,  No.  142,  1148-1151,  1165;  N.  Y. 
Times  C.  H.,  Aug.,  1919,  354-55,  359. 

NAREST 

1919;  June  28:  Versailles.  Treaty.  France,  Great  Britain,  Italy, 
Japan,  Poland,  United  States  of  America.  Art.  18:  Applica- 
tion of  Regulations  established  by  Arts.  332-337  of  Treaty  of 
Peace  with  Germany, —  June  28,  1919, —  for  Governing  Fluvial 
Navigation.  AAIC,  No.  141,  933;  N.  Y.  Times  C  H.,  Aug., 
1919,  280. 

NEIDE 

1919 ;  June  28 :  Versailles.  Treaty.  Allied  &  Associated  Powers  and 
Germany.  Art.  28:  Establishment  of  Fluvial  Boundary. 
AAIC,  No.  142,  963 ;  N.  Y.  Times  C  H.,  Aug.,  1919,  293. 

NETZE 

1919 ;  June  28 :  Versailles.  Treaty.  Allied  &  Associated  Powers  and 
Germany.  Art.  27,  sec.  7:  Boundary  between  Germany  k  Po- 
land established  in  Thalweg.  AAIC,  No.  142,  961-62;  N.  Y. 
Times  C  H.,  Aug.,  1919,  292-93. 

NIEMEN 

1919 ;  June  28 :  Versailles.  Treaty.  Allied  &  Associated  Powers  and 
Germany.  Art.  28:  Establishment  of  Fluvial  Boundary.  Arts. 
321-327:  Provisions  regulating  Commerce  &  Navigation.  Arts. 
331-339:  International  Navigation  Instituted.  Arts.  342-45: 
Special  Stipulations  respecting  Erection  &  Procedure  of  an  In- 
ternational Supervisory  Commission.  AAIC,  No.  142,  963,  1148- 
1155,  1157;  N.  Y.  Times  C  H.,  Aug.,  1919,  293,  354-57. 

{Commentary:  German  Government  promises  co-operation  with  the 
other  co-riparian  states  for  facilitating  fluvial  navigation. 
AAIC,  No.  143,  pp.  84-85.) 


TENTATIVE    PROVISIONS  379 

NOGAT 

1919 ;  June  28 :  Versailles.  Treaty.  Allied  &  Associated  Powers  and 
Germany.  Art.  28:  International  Boundary  established  in 
Thalweg.  AAIC,  No.  142,  963 ;  N.  Y.  Times  C.  H.,  Aug.,  1919, 
293. 

ODER 

1919 ;  June  28 :  Versailles.  Treaty.  Allied  &  Associated  Powers  and 
Germany.  Arts.  321-327:  Provisions  governing  Commerce  & 
Navigation.  Arts.  331-339 :  International  Navigation  Insti- 
tuted. Arts.  341,  343-45:  Establishment  &  Regulation  of  an 
International  Supervisory  Commission.  Arts.  363-64:  Special 
Rights  accorded  to  the  Czecho-Slovak  State.  AAIC,  No.  142, 
1148-55,  1156-57,  1165;  N.  Y.  Times  C.  H.,  Aug.,  1919,  354r- 
57,  359. 

(Commentary :  The  German  Government  engages  to  rectify  the 
navigable  course,  but  considers  establishment  of  the  proposed 
Commission  as  superfluous.     AAIC,  No.  143,  pp.  84-85.) 

PIASNITZ 

1919 ;  June  28 :  Versailles.  Treaty.  Allied  &  Associated  Powers  and 
Germany.  Art.  27,  sec.  7:  Establishment  of  Fluvial  Boundary 
between  Germany  &  Poland.  AAIC,  No.  142,  962 ;  N.  Y.  Times 
C  H.,  Aug.,  1919,  292-93. 

POLLENZINER  LAKE 

1919;  June  28:  Versailles.  Treaty.  Allied  &  Associated  Powers  and 
Germany.  Art.  100 :  Boundary  between  Germany  &  Poland  es- 
tablished on  Median  Line.  AAIC,  No.  142,  1011;  N.  Y.  Times 
C  H.,  Aug.,  1919,  pg.  310. 

RHINE 

1919 ;  June  28 :  Versailles.  Treaty.  Allied  &  Associated  Powers  and 
Germany.  Art.  27,  sec.  3 :  Fluvial  Boundary  Established.  Arts. 
321-327:  Provisions  governing  Commerce  &  Navigation.  Arts. 
354-360:  Convention  of  Mannheim  of  Oct.  17,  1868,  to  govern 
Navigation  except  as  modified  by  Art.  338  of  Present  Treaty; 
Establishment  &  Constitution  of  the  Central  Rhine  Commission; 
Vessels  of  All  Nations  accorded  Equality  as  to  Navigation  Privi- 
leges ;  Cession  by  Germany  to  France  of  Vessels  and  Port  Facili- 
ties; Diversion  of  Waters  for  Power,  Irrigation,  and  Mainte- 
nance of  Canals.  AAIC,  No.  142,  960,  1148-1151,  1160-1164; 
N".  Y.  Times  C  H.,  Aug.,  1919,  292,  354-55,  358-59. 

(Commentary :  As  the  present  Central  Commission  of  the  Rhine  has 
proven  competent  to  fulfill  requirements,  the  German  Government 
does  not  favor  alteration.    AAIC,  No.  143,  pp.  84-85.) 


380  TENTATIVE    PROVISIONS 

KHINE-MEUSE  PROJECTED  CANAL 

1919 ;  June  28 :  Versailles.  Treaty.  Allied  &  Associated  Powers  and 
Germany.  Art.  358:  Eight  of  Belgium  to  divert  Waters  from 
Ehine  for  Maintenance  of  the  Projected  Rhine-Meuse  Canal 
Recognized.  Art.  361:  Germany  agrees  to  construct  the  Por- 
tion of  the  Proposed  Canal  within  German  Dominion;  Admin- 
istration &  Jurisdiction  of  the  Central  Ehine  Commission  shall 
extend  to  regulate  Enjoyment  of  the  Canal.  AAIC,  No.  142, 
1162-64;  N.  Y.  Times  C.  H.,  Aug.,  1919,  358-59. 

SCHELDT 

1919 ;  June  28 :  Versailles.  Treaty.  Allied  &  Associated  Powers  and 
Germany.  Art.  282,  sec.  10:  Renewal  of  the  Convention  of 
July  16,  1863,  concerning  the  Amortization  of  the  Scheldt  Toll. 
AAIC,  No.  142,  1101;  N.  Y.  Times  C.  H.,  Aug.,  1919,  340. 

SKOTTAU 

1919 ;  June  28 :  Versailles.  Treaty.  Allied  &  Associated  Powers  and 
Germany.  Art.  28 :  Fluvial  Boundary  adopted  for  East  Prussia. 
AAIC,  No.  142,  963;  N.  Y.  Times  C  H.,  Aug.,  1919,  293. 

THEISS 

1919;  Sept.  10:  St.  Germain-en-Laye.  Treaty.  Allied  &  Associated 
Powers  and  Austria.  Part  XII,  Sect.  1,  Arts.  284r-89 :  General 
Provisions  governing  Inland  Navigation.  Art.  291 :  Special 
Stipulations  concerning  Navigation  of  Theiss.  Senate  Doc,  No. 
92,  pgs.  177-79,  180-81,  66th  U.  S.  Congress,  1st  Sess. 

VISTULA 

1919 ;  June  28 :  Versailles.  Treaty.  Allied  &  Associated  Powers  and 
Germany.  Art.  28:  International  Boundary  established  in 
Thalweg.  Art.  100:  Thalweg  adopted  as  Boundary  between 
Germany  &  Poland.  AAIC,  No.  142,  933,  963,  1010 ;  N.  Y.  Times 
.  C  H.,  Aug.,  1919,  280,  293,  310. 

(^Commentary:  The  German  Government  would  prefer  to  regulate 
the  navigation  &  administration  of  the  Vistula  by  Special  Con- 
vention with  Poland.     AAIC,  No.  143,  pp.  84-85.) 

1919;  June  28:  Versailles.  Treaty.  France,  Great  Britain,  Italy, 
Japan,  Poland,  United  States  of  America.  Art.  18 :  Navigation. 
AAIC,  No.  141,  933;  N.  Y.  Times  C  H.,  Aug.,  1919,  292-93. 

ZARNOWITZ  LAKE 

1919 ;  June  28 :  Versailles.  Treaty.  Allied  &  Associated  Powers  <ind 
Germany.  Art.  27,  sec.  7:  Boundary  between  Germany  &  Po- 
land established  on  Median  Line.  AAIC,  No.  142,  961-63;  N.  Y. 
Times  C.  H.,  Aug.,  1919,  292-93. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

ALVEESTONE,  Viscount :  Eecollections  of  Bench  and  Bar.  Lon- 
don, 1914. 

American  Academy  of  Political  and  Social  Sciences :  Vol.  31  ( Jan.- 
Jvme,  1908),  concerning  American  Waterways. 

American  Historical  Eeview:  Vol  I.  (1895)-Vol.  XXII  (1917). 
New  York,  1895-to  date. 

American  Journal  of  International  Law:     New  York,  1907-1918. 

Ashburner,  Walter:  The  Ehodian  Sea-Law.  Oxford,  University 
Press,  1909. 

Azuni,  Domenico,  A. :     Maritime  Law.     New  York,  1806. 

BEAZLEY,  Charles  E. :  Dawn  of  Modern  Geography.  3  v.,  London, 
1897. 

Benedict,  E.  D. :  History  of  the  Ehodian  Law.  Yale  Law  Journal, 
1909,  pg.  223. 

Bering  Sea  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  Proceedings:  53rd.  Cong.,  2nd. 
Sess.,  Senate  Executive  Doc,  No.  177,  pt.  1-16,  16  v.,  Washing- 
ton, G.  P.  O.,  1895. 

Blair,  Emma  H.,  and  Eobertson,  James  A. :  The  Philippine  Islands. 
Cleveland,  1903. 

Burroughs,  Sir  John:  Soveraignty  of  the  British  Seas;  proved  by 
records,  history,  and  the  municipal  laws  of  this  kingdom.  Writ- 
ten 1633.     Eepublished,  London,  1739. 

CAMDEN,  William:     Defeat  of  the  Spanish  Armada. 

Camden,  William:  Historic  of  the  Most  Eenowned  and  Victorious 
Princesse  Elizabeth;  late  Queene  of  England.     London,  1635. 

Cauchy,   Eugene:     Droit  Maritime  International.     Paris,   1862. 

Clapp,  Edwin  J. :     The  Navigable  Ehine.     New  York,  1911. 

Clavell,  Eobert :  His  Majesties  Propriety  and  Dominion  of  the  Brit- 
ish Seas  Asserted;  together  with  a  true  account  of  the  Neather- 
landers  Insupportable  Insolencies,  and  Injuries,  they  have  com- 
mitted; and  the  Inestimable  Benefits  they  have  gained  in  their 
Fishing  on  the  English  Seas.     London,  1665. 

Clowes,  William  L.:     The  Eoyal  Navy.     7  v.     London,  1898. 

Coke,  Sir  Edward :  Institutes  of  the  Law  of  England.  4  v.  London, 
1809. 

383 


384  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Constans,  L. :  Une  Kedaction  du  Statut  Maritime  de  Marseilles. 
Eomanische  Forschungen.     Vol.  23  (1907),  645-675. 

D'ANVERS,  Knightley:     A  General  Abridgement  of  the  Common 

Law.     2  V.  with  2  supplem.  vols.     London,  1705. 
Daru,  Count  Pierre  A.  N.  B. :     Histoire  de  la  Republique  de  Venise. 

8  V.    3rd  Edit.    Paris,  1826. 
Day,  Clive:     History  of  Commerce.     New  York,  1914. 
Dumont,  Jean;  continued  by  Barbeyrac  and  Rousset:     Corps  ITni- 

versel  Diplomatique  du  Droit  des  Gens.     (Contains  treaties  from 

A.D.  313-1730.)     13  V.    Amsterdam,  1726-39. 

ENCYCLOPAEDIA  BRITANNICA 

FISKE,  John :     The  Discovery  of  America.     2  v.     Boston,  1892. 

Fiske,  John:     Columbus.     Boston,  1909. 

Foster,  John  W. :  Evolution  of  International  Law.  Yale  Law  Re- 
view, 1909,  pg.  149. 

France :     Recueil  des  Traitez  de  Paix.     6  v.     Paris,  1693. 

Fulton,  Thomas  W. :  The  Sovereignty  of  the  Sea ;  an  historical  ac- 
count of  the  Claims  of  England  to  the  Dominion  of  the  British 
Seas.    London,  1911. 

GEOGRAPHIC  JOURNAL;  being  the  Proceedings  of  the  Royal 

Geographic  Society.     London. 
Geographic  Review. 
Gerard  de  Rayneval,   Joseph  M. :    De  la  Liberte  des  Mers.    2  v. 

Paris,  1811. 
Goldschmidt,  Levin :     Origin  of  Commercial  Institutions.     Published 

in  "  Primitive  and  Ancient  Legal  Institutions  "  by  Albert  Ko- 

courek  and  John  H.  Wigmore.     Boston,  1915. 
Great   Britain:     Annual   Register;    being   the   continuation    of   the 

"Historical  Register." 
Great  Britain:     Foreign  and  State  Papers. 

Great  Britain:     Historical  Register,   containing  an  impartial  rela- 
tion of  all  transactions.  Foreign  and  Domestic.     Vol.  I.,  1715. 
Great  Britain:     Parliament:     Sessional  Papers;   Commercial,  1903, 

No.  7. 
Grote,  George :    History  of  Greece.     Boston,  12  v.,  1851-1856. 
Grotius,  Hugo :     De  jure  belli  ac  pacis.     Whewell  trans.,  Cambridge, 

1853.     Carnegie  trans.,  Washington,  1914. 
Grotius,  Hugo:     Dissertation  sur  la  Liberte  des  Mers.     Trans,  by 

Guichon  de  Grandpont.    Paris,  1845. 


BIBLIOGEAPHY  385 

HALL,  William  E.:  A  Treatise  on  International  Law.  4tli  Edit. 
Oxford,  1895. 

Hayes,  Carlton  J. :  Political  and  Social  History  of  Modern  Europe. 
2  V.     New  York,  1916. 

Hakluyt,  Richard :  Early  English  and  French  Voyages.  New  York, 
1906. 

Hakluyt,  Eichard:    Principal  Navigations.     12  v.     Glasgow,  1903. 

Herodotus:     History.     Trans,  by  Eawlinson.     4  v. 

Hertslet,  Sir  Cecil:  Canals  and  Waterways  of  Belgium.  In  Great 
Britain:    Diplomatic  and  Consular  Reports.     London,  1904. 

Hill,  David  J. :     History  of  Diplomacy.     3  v.     London,  1914. 

Hirst,  Margaret  E. :     Life  of  Frederich  List.     New  York,  1909. 

Holdich,  Thomas  H. :  Political  Frontiers  and  Boundary  Making. 
London,  1916. 

Home,  Andrew:  The  Mirrour  of  Justices;  written  originally  in  the 
old  French,  long  before  the  Conquest ;  and  many  things  added  by 
A.  Home,  translated  into  English  by  William  Hughes.  London, 
1768. 

Hough,  B.  Olney:     Ocean  Traffic  and  Trade.     Chicago,  1914. 

Huet,  Pierre  D. :  History  of  Navigation  and  Commerce  of  the  An- 
cients.    London,  1717. 

JOHNSON,  Emory  R.:  Inland  Waterways.  Annals:  American 
Academy  of  Political  and  Social  Sciences ;  Supplement,  Septem- 
ber, 1893. 

Johnson,  Emory  R. :  Navigation  Resources  of  American  Waterways. 
United  States:  Conservation  Conference,  1908.  Washington, 
1909. 

Johnson,  Emory  R. :  Ocean  and  Inland  Water  Transportation.  New 
York,  1906. 

Justice,  Alexander :  Of  the  Dominion  of  the  Sea,  in  general,  and  of 
the  British  Seas,  in  particular.    London,  1705. 

Justinian:    Institutes.    Abdy  and  Walker  trans.     Cambridge,  1876. 

KIRCHOFF,  Alfred:  The  Sea  in  the  Life  of  Nations.  Annual  Re- 
port of  the  Smithsonian  Institute.    Washington,  G.  P.  O.,  1902. 

LATJGHTON,  John  K.:    From  Howard  to  Nelson.    London,  1899. 
Leonard,  William :     Reports  of  cases  Adjudged  at  Westminster  in  the 

Reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth.     London,  1663. 
Lindley,  W.  H.:     Great  Britain:    Report  of  the  Royal  Commission 

on  Canals  and  Waterways.    London,  1909. 


386  BIBLIOGEAPHY 

Lindsay,  William  S. :     History  of  Merchant  Shipping.     4v.     18Y6. 
List,  Frederich :     The  National  System  of  Political  Economy.     Phil- 
adelphia, 1856. 
Livius,  Titus :     History  of  Rome.     4  v.  London  edit.,  1861. 

MAHAN,  Alfred  T. :  The  Influence  of  Sea  Power  on  History ;  1660- 
1783.    Boston,  1890. 

Mahan,  Alfred  T. :     The  Problem  of  Asia.     Boston,  1900. 

Mahan,  Alfred  T. :     Some  Neglected  Aspects  of  War.     Boston,  1907. 

Maine,  Sir  Henry:     Ancient  Law.     London,  1870. 

Martens,  Charles  de:  Causes  Celebres  du  Droit  des  Gens.  5v. 
Leipzig,  1858-1861. 

Martens,  G.  F.  de;  continued  by  C.  de  Martens,  Saalfeld,  Murhard, 
Samwer,  Hopf,  Stoerk,  and  Triepel:  Eecueil  des  Traites.  88 
vols.     1791-1910. 

McCulloch,  John  R. :     Dictionary  of  Commerce.     London,  1882. 

McCulloch,  John  R. :  A  Treatise  on  Economic  Policy.  London, 
1859. 

Medows,  Sir  P. :  Observations  concerning  the  Dominion  and  Sov- 
ereig-nty  of  the  Seas.     London,  1689. 

Merchant,  E.  O. :  Comparison  of  American  and  European  Water- 
ways. National  Waterways  Commission.  Washington,  G.  P.  O., 
1912. 

Molloy,  Charles :  De  jure  maritime  et  navali ;  or,  a  Treatise  of  Mari- 
time Affairs.     2  v.     9th  Edit.     London,  1769. 

Mommsen,  Theodor:  Provinces  of  the  Roman  Empire.  Trans,  by 
William  P.  Dickson.     New  York,  1887. 

Montesquieu,  Baron  de :  Spirit  of  Laws.  Trans,  by  Thomas  Nugent. 
2  V.     London,  1878. 

Moore,  John  Bassett:     American  Diplomacy.     New  York,  1905. 

Moore,  John  Bassett:  History  and  Digest  of  International  Law.  8 
V.     Washington,  G.  P.  O.,  1906. 

Moore,  John  Bassett:  History  and  Digest  of  International  Arbitra- 
tions.    6  V.     Washington,  G.  P.  O.,  1898. 

Moore,  John  Bassett:  Law  and  Organization.  American  Political 
Science  Review,  Vol.  ix.  No.  1. 

Moore,  John  Bassett:  The  Hague  Conventions.  Columbia  Univer- 
sity Quarterly.     New  York,  December,  1914,  pg.  10. 

NAVY  Records   Society  Publications:     Laws   and   Customs   of  the 

Sea ;  a.  d.  1205-1648.     London,  1915. 
Nys,  Ernest:     Le  Droit  International;  les  Principes,  les   Theories, 

lea  Faits.    3  v.    Brussels,  1912. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  387 

Nys,  Ernest:    Un  Chapitre  de  I'Histoire  de  la  Mer.     Academie  Roy- 
ale  Belgique;  Lettres;  Bulletin,  Series  3,  1900. 

ORTOLAN,  Theodore:    Regies  Internationales  et  Diplomatic  de  la 
Mer.    2  v.    Paris,  4th.  Ed.,  1864. 

PARDESSUS,  J.  M. :     Collection  de  Lois  Maritimes  Anterieures  au 

XVIIIe  Siecle.     6  v.     Paris,  1828-1845. 
Pascal,  Blaise  de:     Pensees;  avec  les  notes  de  Voltaire.     Paris,  1873. 
Paston  Letters,  The:     Edited  by  J.  Gairdner.     4  v.     Edinburgh,  1910. 
Payne,  E.  J.:     Voyages  of  Elizabethan   Seamen  to  America.'   2  v' 

Oxford,  1900. 
Payne,  E.  J. :     History  of  European  Colonies.     London,  1877. 
Penn,  Sir  William:     Memorials;  1644-1670.     Collected  by  Granville 

Penn.     2  v.     London,  1833. 
Phillimore,    Sir   Robert   J.:     Commentaries   on    International   Law. 

3rd  Edit.     London,  1879-1889. 
Phillipson,  Coleman :     The  International  Law  and  Custom  of  Ancient 

Greece  and  Rome.     2  v.     London,  1911. 
Pinon,  Rene:     La  Mer  Noire  et  la   Question  des  Detroits.     Revue 

des  Deux  Mondes.     Vol.  29,  800.    Paris,  1905. 
Plutarch:     Lives.     Trans,  by  A.  Stewart.     4  v.     London,  1912. 
Pufendorf,  Baron,  Samuel  von :     Of  the  Law  of  Nature  and  Nations. 
Notes  by  M.  Barbeyrac.     English  version  by  Basil  Kennett  and 
Mr.  Carew.     London,  1729. 

RALEIGH,  Sir  Walter:     Works.     8  v.     Oxford,  1829. 

Ravenstein,  E.  G. :     Martin  Behaim.     London,  1908. 

Rawlinson,  George :     Phoenicia.     New  York,  1889. 

Reclus,  Elisee:     Universal  Geography.     Engl.  Edit.,  1894. 

Revue  des  Deux  Mondes. 

Revue  de  Droit  International  et  de  Legislation  Comparee.     Brussels 

1869,  to  date. 
Revue  Generale  de  Droit  International  Publique.     Paris,   1894,   to 

date. 
Robinson,  Sir  Christopher:     Consulato  del  Mare  relating  to  Prize 

Law.    London,  1800. 
Rolle,  Sir  Henry:    Un  Abridgment  des  Plusieurs  Cases  del  Common 

Ley.    2  v.    London,  1668. 

SAINT  MARTIN,  Vivien  de:     Geographie  Universelle.     7  v.    Paris 
1892-. 


388  BIBLIOGEAPHY 

Schoell,  Maxmillian  S.  F. :  Congres  de  Vienne ;  Eecueil  de  Pieces 
Officielles.     6  v.    Paris,  1816. 

Schomberg,  A.  C. :  The  Maritime  Laws  of  Khodes.  Oxford,  1786. 
Reprinted  in  J.  E.  McCulloch's  "  Select  Collect  of  Scarce  and 
Valuable  Economic  Treatises."     London,  1859. 

Scott,  James  Brown:  Cases  on  International  Law.  Saint  Paul, 
1906. 

Scott,  James  Brown :  The  Hague  Peace  Conferences ;  1899-1907.  2 
V.     Baltimore,  1909. 

Seeley,  Sir  John  R. :     The  Expansion  of  England.     London,  1884. 

Seeley,  Sir  John  R. :  The  Growth  of  British  Policy.  2  v.  Cam- 
bridge, 1895. 

Selden,  Sir  John:  Mare  Clausum;  the  Right  and  Dominion  of  the 
Sea.    London,  1663. 

Smith,  J.  R. :  The  Organization  of  Ocean  Commerce.  Univ.  of 
Penn.  Publications,  No.  17.     Philadelphia,  1905. 

Spears,  J.  R. :     Master  Mariners.     New  York,  1914. 

TEDDER,  Arthur  W.:     The  Navy  of  the  Restoration.     Cambridge, 

1916. 
Thacher,  John  Boyd:     Columbus.    3  v.    London,  1904. 
Tudor,  Owen  D.:    Mercantile  Cases.    2  v.     3rd  Edit.    Philadelphia, 

1873 
Twiss,  Sir  Travers :     The  Law  of  Nations.    2  v.    2nd  Edit.     Oxford, 

1884. 
Twiss,  Sir  Travers:    Monumenta  Juridica;  The  Black  Book  of  the 

Admiralty.    4  vols.    London,  1876. 

UNITED  STATES:  Bureau  of  Statistics;  Statistical  Abstract  of 
Foreign  Commerce.     Washington,  G.  P.  O,,  1915. 

United  States:  Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor;  Commissioner 
of  Corporations ;  Special  Report ;  "  Transportation  by  Water  in 
the  United  States."    3  v.    Washington,  G.  P.  O.,  1910. 

United  States:  National  Waterways  Commission;  Final  Report; 
62nd  Cong.,  2nd  Sess.,  Senate  Doc.  No.  469.  Washington,  G.  P. 
O.,  1912. 

United  States:  National  Waterways  Commission;  Document  No. 
7 ;  "  European  Waterways."    Washington,  G.  P.  0.,  1909. 

United  States:  National  Waterways  Commission;  Senate  Doc,  No. 
469 ;  "  The  Development  of  Seaports  and  Waterways,"  by  Ad- 
miral C.  S.  Sperry.     Washington,  G.  P.  O.,  1912. 

United    States:    National   Waterways   Commission;    Doc.    No.    20; 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  389 

"  Railway  Freight  Rates,  Inland  Waterways,  and  Canals  in  Bel- 
gium," by  Ethelbert  Watts.     Washington,  G.  P.  O.,  1911. 
United  States:     Navigation  Laws.     Washington,  G.  P.  O.,  1915. 

VATTEL,  Emmerich  de:  Le  Droit  des  Gens,  3  v.  Chitty  trans., 
Philadelphia,  1863.     Carnegie  trans.,  Washington,  1916. 

WEBER-EBENHOF,  Alfred  von:  Waterways  in  Europe.  Inter- 
national Quarterly,  Vol.  9,  No.  1,  pg.  210.     New  York,  1904. 

Weeden,  William  B. :  Economic  and  Social  History  of  New  Eng- 
land; 1620-1789.     2  V.     Boston,  1890. 

Welwood,  William :  An  Abridgement  of  all  Sea-Lawes ;  which  are  to 
be  found  among  any  people  or  nation,  upon  the  coasts  of  the 
Great  Ocean  and  the  Mediterranean  Sea.     London,  1613. 

Westlake,  John :     International  Law.     2  v.     Cambridge,  1910-1913. 

Wheaton,  Henry:  Elements  of  International  Law.  Lawrence  edit., 
Boston,  1855.  Dana  edit.,  Boston,  1866.  Phillipson  edit.,  Lon- 
don, 1916. 

Whiteway,  R.  S. :  Rise  of  Portuguese  Power  in  India ;  1497-1550. 
Westminster,  1899. 

Williamson,  James  A. :     Maritime  Enterprise ;  1485-1558. 

Wynne,  William :     Life  of  Sir  Leoline  Jenkins.     2  v.     London,  1724. 

ZIMMERN,  Helen:     The  Hansa  Towns,  New  York,  1895. 
Zouche,  Richard :     The  Jurisdiction  of  the  Admiralty  of  England  As- 
serted.    London,  1663. 


INDEX 

AA,  navigation  of.     See  Polish  Waterways,  224. 
Abuna,  navigation  of.     See  Bolivian  Waterways,  297. 
Aby  Lagoon,  navigation  of,  120. 
Addo,  navigation  of,  322. 
Adige,  boundary,  180; 
navigation,  180; 
tolls  prohibited,  180; 
war-vessels  excluded  from,  180. 
Adjarra.     See  Ajarra,  322. 
Adriatic,  exclusive  claims  of  Venice  to,  58,  60; 

tolls  levied  on,  navigation,  61. 
^gean,  trade  route,  17. 
Afghanistan,  isolation  of,  166. 
Africa,  inland  waterways  of,  322; 

importance  of,  162. 
Aguan,  navigation  of,  260. 

Aguarico,  navigation  of.     See  Colombian  Waterways,  229-300. 
Ajarra,  navigation  of,  322. 
Aka,  boundary,  323. 
Akobo,  boundary,  323. 
Akpakorum.     See  Akwayafe,  323. 
Akwayafe   (Akawajafe),  boundary,  323; 
fisheries,  323; 
navigation,  323. 
Alaska,  cession  of,  to  the  United  States,  122. 
Albert  Nyanza,  international  supervisory  commission,  323; 
diversion  of  waters,  323 
navigation,  323. 
Alexander  VI,  Pope,  Demarcation  Line  of,  66; 
Papal  Bulls  of,  64,  67; 
trilbute  of,  to  Columbus,  46. 
Alexander,  Emperor  of  Russia,  ukase  of  (1824),  121. 
Alphonso  X,  King  of  Castile,  38. 
Amakuru,  boundary,  202; 
navigation,  292. 
Amalfi,  Tables  of,  26,  33,  34,  36. 
Amazon,   159,   163; 

navigation  of,  293-96. 
Amur,  10; 

boundary,  354,  363; 
navigation,  354. 
Ancona,   Statutes  of,  29. 
Anebir,  boundary,  323; 
fisheries,  323; 
navigation,  323, 
Ange  de  Ubaldis,  on  Mare  Liberum,  102. 

391 


Angoustrine  Canal,  boundary,  180. 
Anjibir.     See  Anebir,  323. 
Annecy  Lake,  boundary,  180. 
Anyalo   (Anube),  boundary,  323; 
fisheries,  323; 
navigation,    323. 
Apa,  navigation  of;  vpar-vessels  prohibited  on,  308. 

See  Paraguayan  Watervrays. 
Apalachicola,  boundary,  260. 
Apure,  navigation  of,  296,  299. 
Aquidaban,  navigation  of;  war-vessels  prohibited  on,  308. 

See  Paraguayan  Waterways. 
Arabian  Sea,  trade-route,  17. 
Araguary,  navigation  of,  296. 
Aravo,  180. 

Arawari.     See  Araguary,  296. 
Arbitration,  of  Bering  Sea  Claims,  125. 
Arctic,  dominion  on,  Danish,  58;   Russian,  10;   Swedish,  58. 
Argentine  Waterways,  navigation  of,  296,  297. 
Argun,  boundary,  354,  363; 

navigation,  354. 
Aristotle,  globular  theory  of,  45. 
Arkansas,  boundary,  261 ; 

diversion  of  waters  of,  261 ; 
navigation,  261. 
Armada,  destruction  of  the,  78. 
Armed  Neutrality,  institution  of  the,  91,  92. 
Aroangwa.     See  Loangwa,  335. 
Aruwimi,  supervisory  commission  established,  324; 

navigation,  324, 
Arve,  boundary  in,  181. 
Asiatic  Waterways,  354. 
Asiento  (1713),  Spanish,  90. 
Assyria,  maritime  resources  of,  16. 
Atbara,  boundary,  324. 

diversion  of  waters,  324. 
Athens,  sea-power  of,  18; 

universal  market,  19. 
Atlantic,  English  claims  on  North,  58; 

Portuguese  sovereignty  on  South,  58. 
Atrato,  navigation  of,  299. 

See  Colombian  Waterways. 
Aua.     See  Awa,  324. 
Augustowo  Canal,  navigation  of,  224. 

See  Polish  Waterways. 
Australian  Waterways   (Murray),  363. 
Aveto,  boundary,  181. 
Awa,  boundary,  324; 
fisheries,  324; 
navigation,  324. 

BABYLON,  maritime  resources  of,  16; 
navigation  laws  of,  27. 


INDEX  393 

Bachorze  Canal,  navigation  of.     See  Polish  Waterways,  224. 
Bacon,  Lord  Francis,  on  Sea-Power,  52. 
Balboa,  Vasco  N.  de,  discovery  of  Pacific  Ocean  by,  48. 
Balfour,  Mr.  A.,  on  necessity  of  Sea-Power,  110, ». 
Baltic,  attempted  neutralization  of,   132; 

dominion  on,  Danish,  58;    Russian,   10;    Swedish,  58; 
neutrality  of,  denied,  93; 
restriction  of,  attempted,  91,  92,  93. 
Barbary  States,  impositions  of,  119;  war  with,  119. 
Barima,  boundary,  297; 
navigation,  297. 
Baro,  boundary  in,  324. 
Bayonne  Decree   (1808),  136. 
Beirut,  Mesopotamian  trade  of,  17. 

Belgium,  competition  of  railways  and  waterways  in,  160. 
Belize,  boundary,  261; 

navigation,  261. 
Beni,  navigation  of,  297. 
Benue,  boundary,  324; 

navigation,  324,  325,  341. 
Beresina,  navigation   of  1  ^^^  ^^^.^^  Waterways,  224. 

Beresina  Canal,  navigation  of.  J  '' 

Bering  Sea,  jurisdictional  claims  in,  123; 

restriction  of  fisheries  in,  121;  renounced  by  treaty,  121,  122. 
Bermejo.     See  Vermejo,  321. 
Bewa  (Biwa),  Boundary  in,  325. 
Bidassoa,  boundary,  181; 
fisheries,  181; 
navigation,  181,  182. 
Bija.     See  Imba,  332. 
Black  River  Canal,  navigation,  263-64   (Canals)  ; 

tolls  prohibited,  264. 
Black  Sea,   access  denied  to,  43;   navigation  of,   11,   131;    restrictions  on, 

132;  Russian  territory  bordering,  10;  Trade-Route  on,  43. 
Black  Volta,  boundary,  325; 
navigation,  325. 
Blake,  Robert,  English  fleet  in  command  of,  86. 
Bleisse,  boundary,  182; 

fisheries,  182. 
Blockade,  effectiveness  of,  1S3,  138. 
Blue  Nile,  boundary  in,  325. 
Bolivian  Waterways,  navigation  of,  297,  298. 
Borneo,  Waterways  of,  navigation  of,  166,  354-55; 

tolls  prohibited,  354. 
Bosphorus,  control  of,  43;  restrictions  on  navigation  of,  132;  Trade-Route 

through,  63;   Turkish  dominion  over,  11. 
Boug.     See  Polish  Waterways,  Bug,  224. 
Boundary,  Demarcation  of  Fluvial,  on 

Adige,  180;  Akwayafe,   323;  Anebir,  323; 

Aka,  323 ;  Amakuru,  292 ;  Angoustrine    Canal, 

Akobo,  323;  Amur,  354;  180; 


394 


INDEX 


Boundary,  Demarcation 
Annecy  Lake,  180; 
Anyalo,  323; 
Apalachicola,  260; 
Argun,  354; 
Arkansas,  261; 
Arve,  181; 
Atbara,  324; 
Aveto,   181; 
Awa,  324; 

Barima,  297; 
Baro,  324; 
Belize,  261; 
Benue,  324; 
Bewa,  325; 
Bidassoa,  181; 
Black  Volta,  325; 
Bliesse,  182; 
Blue  Nile,  325 ; 
Borneo    Waterways, 

355; 
Bourget  Lake,  185; 
Bourna       Sola      Lake, 

185; 
Bug,  186; 

Cajet,  326; 
Cambompo,  326; 
Cerchio,  186; 
Chad  Lake,  327; 
Champlain  Lake,   261 ; 
Chiloango,  327; 
Chilwa  Lake,  328; 
Chiuta  Lake,  328; 
Chobe,  328; 
Cisa,  186; 

Colorado,   266,    267; 
Congo,  328; 
Constance    Lake,     186, 

187; 
Cross,  329; 
Cunene,  330; 
Cypress  Lake,  261-62; 

Dakka,  330; 

Danube,  189,  191,  192; 
Detroit,    261-62; 
Dnieper,   199; 
Dniester,  200; 
Drewenz,  201 


of  Fluvial,  on   (Continued)  : 

Elster,  205;  La    Croix    Lake,    261 

Ems,  205,  206; 
Enza,  206; 

Erie       Lake,       261-62 
268; 


Faro,  330; 
Floss-Graben,  206; 


62; 
Laiblach,  211; 
Lake     of     the     Woods, 

261-62,  272; 
La  Laire,  211; 
Lauter,  212; 
Lax-Elf,  212; 


Fly       (New      Guinea),     Leek,  212; 


358; 
Foron,   206,   207; 
Fowl  Lakes,  261-62; 

Gaeresi,  331; 
Garda  Lake,  207; 
Geneva  Lake,  207; 
Gila,  268; 
Glan,  209 ; 
Goro,  209; 

Great  Lakes,  269-70; 
Great   Scarcies,   331; 
Guadiana,  209; 

Hermance,  209; 
Honde,  332; 
Hondo,  270; 
Huron     Lake,     261-62, 
271; 

Imba,  332;' 
Inn,  210; 
Irtish,  360; 

Jipe  Lake,  332 ; 
Jora,  332; 
Juba,  332,  333; 

Kalombo,  333; 
Kara-Kourt,  211; 
Kassai,  333; 
Kilunga,  333; 
Komadugu,  334; 
Kongama,  211; 
Konge-Aa,  211; 
Kouban,  211; 
Kubango,  334; 
Kuilu,  334; 
Kulusulo,   334; 

Lac  Bois  Blanc,  261 ; 


Liscoarta,  212; 

Little  Vermillion  Lake, 

261; 
Loangwa,  335; 
Luapula,  336; 
Lucalla,  337; 
Lukualli,  337; 
Lys,  213; 

Maggiore    Lake,    213; 
Magra,  214; 
Maia,  338; 
Maieteb,  338; 
Makona,  338; 
Makwoi,  338; 
Mao  Bulo,  339; 
Mao  Kalo,  339; 
Mao  Kam,  339; 
Mao  Tati,  339; 
Mareb,  339; 
Marquari,  339; 
Mauwa,  339; 
Meli,  340; 
Memphremagog     Lake, 

261-62; 
Mincio,  218,  219; 
Mississippi,  274,  276; 
Morno,  341 ; 
Morro,  341; 
Moselle,  219,  220; 
Mweru,  341; 

Nahe,  220; 

Namecan     Lake,     261- 

62; 
Neisse,  221; 
Niagara,   261,   277; 
Nicaragua  Lake,  278; 
Niger,  341; 
Nile,  343; 
Nuon,  343; 
Nyasa  Lake,  343; 


INDEX 


395 


Boundary,  Demarcation  of  Fluvial,  on  {Continued) 


Ocpara,  343,  344; 

Oder,  221; 

Ontario    Lake,    261-62, 

278-79; 
Orange,  344; 
Oure,  222; 
Oyapock,  304; 


St.  Clair  Flats  Canal,     Sure,  250; 

269-70; 
St.  Clair 

Lake, 

St.  Clair    ,  ^„„ 
283 


261-62, 
-269-70, 


Parana,  309; 
Paswig  Lakes 
Paswig,  222; 
Pibor,  344; 
Pigeon,  261-62; 
Po,  222,  223,  224 
Podhorce,  224; 
Porta,  225; 
Prosna,  225; 
Pruth,  226; 
Pungwe,  345; 
Puycerda  Canal, 

Queich,  227; 


222; 


288; 


227; 


Rafin  Donga,  345; 

Rahad,  345; 

Rainy  Lake,    )  261-62, 

Rainy  River,  J  280; 

Raour,  227; 

Rhine,  228,  229,  230; 

Rhone,  239,  240; 

Rio  Grande,  281,  282; 

Rovuma,  345; 

Rudolph   Lake,   345; 

Ruo,  345,  346; 


River, 
St.  Francis,  261,  284; 
St.  John,  261-62,  284, 

285; 
St.       Lawrence,       286, 

287; 
St.  Mary's  Lake, 
St.  Mary's  River 
St.    Mary's    (Florida), 

288; 
Saisaginaga,    261-62; 
Salza,  241; 
Sama,  317; 
Sambre,   242; 
San  Juan,  289,  290; 
Saratsika,  242; 
Sarre,  242; 
Scheldt,  244; 
Schwalb,  249; 
Schwarze-Elster,   249; 
Semoy,  249; 
Setit,  347; 
Shari,  347; 
Shavoe,  347; 
Shire,  348; 
Songvs^e,  348-49; 
Spree,  249; 
Squincio  Lake,  249; 
Stefanie  Lake,   349; 
Stikine,  290; 
Styr,  250; 
Superior  Lake 
Sungari,  367; 


Tagliata,   250; 
Takutu,  318; 
Tana,  349; 

Tanganyika  Lake,  349; 
Tendo,  350; 
Terneuzen  Canal,  251; 
Ticino,  252; 
Tiel,  350; 
Tornea,  252; 
Tresa,  253; 
Tumen,  368; 

Ulafu,  351 ; 
Urbelcha,  253; 
Ussuri,  369; 

Valcarlos,  253 ; 
Vanera,  253; 
Victoria   Nyanza,    351, 

352; 
Vistula,  254,  255; 
Volta,  352; 


256; 


Warthe,  255; 
Weisse-Elster, 
Worn,  352; 
Worms,  257,  258; 

Yalpouk,  258; 
Yederam,  352; 

Yssel,  258; 


291: 


Saal,  240; 
Sacchi,  346; 
St.  Croix,  261-62,  283 
84; 

Boundary  Waterways, 
Austria/Italy,  182; 
Austria/Poland,  182; 
Austria/Sardinia,  navigation  of,  182; 
Austria/Servia,  navigation  of,  182; 
Baden/Switzerland,  fisheries,  182; 
Belgium/France/Germany,  navigation  of,  183; 
Belgium/France/Germany /Netherlands,  navigation  of,  183; 
Belgium/Netherlands,  fisheries,  183; 

navigation,  183; 
Bolivia/Brazil,  navigation  of,  298; 
Brazil/Colombia,  navigation  of,  298; 


Zambesi,  353; 
Zatsan  Lake,  375; 
Zborowski,  258; 
Zwin  Canal,  260. 


396  INDEX 

Boundary  Waterways   {Continued) 

Brazil/Uruguay,  navigation  of,  298; 

Canada/United  States,  international  supervisory  commission,  263; 
diversion  of  waters,  263; 
fisheries,  263; 
navigation,  261-263; 

France/Germany,  navigation  of,  183; 

navigation  of,  in  Africa,  325; 

France/Liberia,  navigation  of,  325; 

France/Sardinia,  ferry  service  on,  183-84; 

France/Spain,  184; 

France/Switzerland,  fisheries,  184; 

Germany /Great  Britain,  fisheries,  326; 

navigation,  326; 

Hanover/Lubeck,  navigation  of,  184; 

Italy/Switzerland,  fisheries,  184,  185; 

Netherlands/Prussia,  fisheries,  185; 

navigation,  185; 

Portugal/Spain,  navigation  of,  185; 

Russia/Sweden,  navigation,  185. 
Bourget  Lake,  boundary,  185. 
Bourna  Sola  Lake,  boundary,  185. 
Boyana,  navigation  of,  185-86. 
Brazil,  inclusion  of,  by  Demarcation  Line,  68. 
Breda,  Treaty  of  (1667),  recognizes  Flag  Tribute,  87,  88. 
Bristol  Channel,  British  claim  over,  130. 
British  Orders  in  Council   (1807),  135. 

Bromberg  Canal,  navigation  of,  186;    (Polish  Waterways),  224. 
Bruges,  Purple  Book   (Laws)   of,  39. 
Brunhausen  Toll,  imposition  of,  203,  204. 
Brussels   (1890),  Congress  of,  113. 
Bug   (Black  Sea),  boundary,  186;  navigation,  186. 
Bug  (Vistula  System),  navigation  of,  224. 
Bulgaria,  merchant  flag  of,  165. 
Burroughs,  Sir  John,  on  Laws  of  Oleron,  36; 

on  Sovereignty  of  the  Seas,  100. 
Busi,  navigation  of,  326. 

CABOT,  John,  Letters  Patent  issued  to,  70; 

discoveries  of,  48. 
Cadiz,  strategic  commercial  site  of,  15. 
Cajet,  boundary,  326. 

Cambodia  Lake.     See  Grand  Lake  of  Cambodia,  359. 
Cambompo,  boundary,  326. 
Campo,  navigation  of,  326. 
Canals.     See  also:     Individual  Entries. 
Canals,  Canadian,  navigation  of,  263;  tolls  prohibited,  265; 

United  States,  navigation  of,  264;  tolls  prohibited,  265. 
Canton,  navigation  of,  355,  356;  tolls  prohibited,  357. 
Cao-Bang,  navigation  of,  356;  tolls  prohibited,  357. 
Cape  Finisterre,  recognition  of  English  Sea-Sovereignty  to,  89. 
Cape  of  Good  Hope,  discovery  of,  44. 


INDEX  397 

Caqueta.     See  Yapura,  322. 

Carthage,  commercial  prosperity  of,  15; 

destruction  of,  57; 

dominion  of,  over  Mediterranean,  56; 

sea-trading  laws  of,  32; 

war  of,  with  Marseilles,  56. 
Cascade  Canal,  navigation  of.     See  Columbia,  267. 
Casiquiare  Canal,  navigation  of.     See  Amazon,  293;  Orinoco,  303. 
Caspian  Sea,  navigation,  356;   trade  route  on,   17;    war-vessels  regulated, 

356. 
Cassai.     See  Kassai,  333. 
Catahouche.     See  Apalachicola,  260. 
Catherine  II,  Empress  of  Russia,  11. 

Cauca   (Madeira  System),  navigation  of.     See  Colombian  Waterways,  299. 
Cavally,  navigation  of,  326. 
Cecil,  Lord  Robert,  on  British  Blockade,  138. 
Celilo  Canal,  navigation  of.     See  Columbia,  267. 
Cerchio,  boundary,  186. 
Ceylon,  Pearl  Fisheries  of,  128, 
Chad  Lake,  fisheries,  327;  navigation,  326. 
Chadda.     See  Benue,  324. 
Chamalecon,  navigation  of,  265,  266. 

Chambira    (Chambira-Yacu),   navigation   of.     See   Ecudorean    Waterways, 

300; 

Peruvian      Waterways, 
312. 
Chambly  Canal,  navigation,  263;  tolls  prohibited,  265.      )  r,      p, 
Champlain  Canal,  navigation,  264;  tolls  prohibited,  265.  \^^^  Canals. 
Champlain  Lake,  boundary,  261;  commission  of  supervision,  262;  diversion 

of  waters,  261;  fisheries,  266;  navigation,  261,  266. 
Chancellor,  Richard,  at  Moscow   (1553),  50. 
Channel  Islands,  English  retention  of,  75. 
Chapare,  navigation  of,  298. 
Chari.     See  Shari,  347. 
Charlemagne,  defeat  of,  by  Venice,  60;  commerce  and  navigation  fostered 

by,  21. 
Charles  II,  King  of  England,  88. 
Charles  V,  King  of  France,  38. 
Charles   V    (Charles    I,    King    of    Spain),    Emperor,    Spanish    Sea-Power 

under,  69. 
Chattahoochee.     See  Apalachicola,  260. 
Chesapeake  Bay,  jurisdictional  claims  over,  130. 
Chicamocha.     See  Colombian  Waterways:     Sogamosa,  299. 
Chico,  navigation  of.     See  Argentine  Waterways,  296. 
Chien-Tang.     See  Tsien-Tang,  357,  368. 
Chiloango,  boundary,  327. 
Chilwa  Lake,  boundary,  328. 
Chimore,  navigation  of,  298,  299. 
China,  territorial  losses  of,  10;  waterways  of,  169. 
Chinese  Inland  Waterways,  navigation,  356,  357; 
tolls  prohibited,  358. 
Chioggia,  Venetian  naval  victory  off,  61,  62. 


398 


Chiuta  Lake,  boundary,  328. 
Chobe,  boundary,  328. 
Choluteca,  navigation  of,  266. 

Chubut,  navigation  of.     See  Argentine  Waterways,  296. 
Chu-kiang.     See  Canton,  355,  357. 
Cipango  (Japan),  Island  of,  Magellan's  voyage,  49. 
Cisa,  boundary,  186. 

Coca  (Napo  System),  navigation  of.     See  Colombian  Waterways,  299; 

Ecuadorean  Waterways,  300. 
Coco,  navigation  of,  266,  271. 

Cockburn,  Chief  Justice,  on  Sovereignty  of  the  Seas,  108; 
Coke,  Sir  Edward,  on  jurisdiction  in  the  Four  Seas,  74,  n; 

on  Mare  Liberum,  100. 
Colombian  waterways,  navigation  of,  299,  300. 
Colonists,  early,  in  Africa,  15. 

Colorado,  navigation  of.     See  Argentine  Waterways,  296. 
Colorado  boundary,   266,   267 ;    commission   of    supervision,   267 ;    diversion 
of  waters,  267;  navigation,  266-67;  obstructions  forbidden,  267. 
Columbia,  navigation,  267 ;  sea-going  vessels  on,  159. 
Columbus,  voyage  of,  42,  46:   commercial  significance  of,  4. 
Commerce,  international  water-borne,  7;   isolation  without,  9;   revival  of, 

under  Charlemagne,  21. 
Commission,  International  Supervisory,  on: 


Albert  Nyanza,  323; 
Aruwami,  324; 
Boundary  Waterways 

(Canada/United   States),  263; 
Champlain  Lake,  263; 
Colorado,  267; 
Congo,  328; 

Cypress  Lake,  261,  263; 
Danube,   191,   192,  193,   194,   195, 

196,  197,  198; 
Detroit,  261,  263; 
Edward  and  George  Lake,  330; 
Erie  Lake,  263; 
Fowl  Lake,  261,  263; 
Great  Lakes,  263,  270; 
Huron  Lake,  261,  263; 
Kalombo,  328; 
Kandcko,  328; 
Kassai,  328; 
ICivu  Lake,  328; 
Kuilu,  334; 
Kwa,  335; 

Lac  Bois  Blanc,  261,  263; 
La  Croix  Lake,  263; 
Lake  of  the  Woods,  261,  263; 
Leopold  II  Lake,  335 ; 
Little  Vermillion  Lake,  261,  263 ; 
Llivia  Canal,  212; 
Loange,  328; 


Lobai,  336; 

Lomami,  328,  336; 

Luapula,  336; 

Lukualli,  337; 

Lukuga,  337; 

Lulanga,  337; 

Makua    (Ubangi   System),   328; 

Memphremagog  Lake,  261,  263; 

Mflni,  340; 

Milk/St.  Mary  System,  274; 

Mweru,  341; 

Namecan  Lake,  261,  263; 

Niagara,  263; 

Ontario  Lake,  261,  263; 

Pama,  344; 

Pigeon,  261,  263; 

Pruth,  226,  227; 

Rainy  Lake,  261,  263; 

Rainy  River,  263; 

Rhine,    228,    229,    231,    232,    233, 

234,  235,  237; 
Rhine-Rhone  Canal,  238; 
Rio  Grande,  281; 
Rusizi,  346; 

St.  Clair  Flats  Canal,  269,  270; 
St.  Clair  Lake,  270; 
St.  Clair  River,  270; 
St.  Croix,  261,  263; 
St.  Francis,  261,  263; 


INDEX  399 

Commission,  International  Supervisory,  on   (Continued): 
St.  John,  261,  263;  Sanga,  346; 

St.  Lawrence,  261-63;  Superior  Lake,  269,  270; 

St.  Mary's  Lake,  269,  270;  Tanganyika  Lake,  349; 

St.  Mary's  River,  270;  Tumba,  350; 

St.  Mary's    (Milk  System),  274;         Ubangi,  351; 
Saisaginaga,  261-63;  Ugala,   351. 

Conception  Bay,  claim  of  dominion  over,  130. 
Congo  System,  demarcation  of  boundaries  in,  328; 

international  supervisory  commission  on,  328; 
navigation  of,  328,  329. 
Congress  of  Brussels    (1890),  113. 
Congress  of  Vienna   (1815),  5. 
Coni,  navigation  of,  300. 
Consolato  del  Mare,  29,  34,  35,  36,  40. 
Constable,  Sir  John,  case  of  74. 
Constance  Lake,  access  from  sea  to,  165; 
boundary,  186,  187; 
diversion  of  waters,  187; 
fisheries,  187; 

international  traffic  on,  164, 
navigation  of,  186,  187,  188. 
Constantinople,  capture  of,  43;  control  of  straits  at,  12. 
Consulate  of  the  Sea.     See  Consolato  del  Mare. 
Continuous  Voyage,  doctrine  of,   137. 
Contraband,  Law  of,  133,  137. 

Copenhagen,  bombardment  of,  93:  protest  of  Russia,  93. 
Corioco,  navigation  of,  300. 
Cornwall  Canal,  See  Canals,  263-64. 
navigation  of, 
tolls  prohibited. 
Corporate  Ownership  of  Vessels,  139,  140-46. 
Corporations,  enemy  share-holders  in,  139. 
Crimean  War,  Russian  territorial  expansion  after,  10. 
Crocodile,  navigation  of,  346. 

Cross,  boundary,  329;  fisheries,  330;  navigation,  330;  tolls  prohibited,  330. 
Crusades,  the  Holy,  influence  of,  on  civilization,  23:  on  maritime  enter- 
prise, 43. 
Cuango.     See  Lukualli,  337. 
Cunene,  boundary,  330. 
Curaray  (Napo  System),  navigation  of.     See  Ecuadorean  Waterways,  300; 

Peruvian    Waterways,    312. 
Cypress  Lake,  boundary,  261;  supervisory  commission  on,  263;  diversion  of 

waters,  262;  fisheries,  263;  navigation,  263-63, 
Cyprus,  Venice  victorious  in  sea-fight  off,  61,  62. 

DA  GAMA,  Vasco.     See  Gama,  Vasco  da. 
Dakka,  boundary,  330. 
Damme,  Judgments  of,  39. 
Danube,  12,  165; 

boundary,  189,   191,  192; 

commercial  importance  of,  163; 


400 


INDEX 


Danube   (Continued)  : 

commission  of  supervision,  191-198; 

fisheries,  188,  189,  198; 

navigation,  188-199; 

trade-route,  53,  152; 

war-vessels  restricted,  199. 
Danube-Rhine  Canal,  project  of  Charlemagne  for,  21. 
Dardanelles,  control  of,  43;   restrictions  on,  132. 
Dchawe.     See  Shavoe,  347. 

Declaration  of  Paris   (1856),  blockade  regulated  by,  138. 
de  Gama,  Vaseo.     See  Gama,  Vasco  da. 
De  la  Queich.     See  Queich,  227. 
Delaware  Bay,  jurisdictional  claim  over,  130. 
Demarcation  Line,  Pope  Alexander  VI  establishes,  66; 

Portuguese  and  Spanish  rights,  65-66. 
Denmark,  claims  of,  to  Marginal  Sea,  129. 
De  Ruyter,  invasion  by,  of  Thames,  87. 
Deseado,  navigation  of.     See  Argentine  Waterways,  296. 
Detroit,  boundary,    261;     commission    of    supervision,    263;    diversion    of 

waters,  269;    fisheries,  262;   navigation,  261-263;   war-vessels  re- 
stricted, 269-70. 
Diaz,  Bartholomew,  voyage  of  discovery,  44. 
Discovery,  Voyages  of,  3. 

Diversion,  Impounding  and  Utilization  of  Waters.     See  also:  Obstructions, 
prohibition  of,  on  navigable  course. 


Albert  Nyanza,  323; 
Arkansas,  261 ; 
Atbara,  324; 
Boundary  Waterways, 

(Canada/United   States),  261- 

62; 
Champlain  Lake,  261 ; 
Colorado,  267; 
Constance  Lake,  187; 
Cypress  Lake,  262; 
Detroit,  269; 
Erie  Lake,  270; 
Fowl  Lakes,  261; 
Great  Lakes,  269,  270; 
Huron  Lake,  270; 
Lac  Bois  Blanc,  261-62; 
La  Croix  Lake,  262 ; 
Lake  of  the  Woods,  272; 
Little  Vermillion  Lake,  262; 
Llivia  Canal,  212; 
Memphremagog  Lake,  262; 
Meuse,  218; 

Milk/St.   Mary  System,   274; 
Namecan  Lake,  261-62; 
Niagara,  263; 
Niger,  342; 
Nile,  343; 


Ontario  Lake,  263; 

Pigeon,  261-62; 

Puycerda  Canal,  227; 

Rainy  Lake,    ) 

Rainy  River,  j-^^-^^' 

Rio  Grande,  282; 

Saal,  241; 

St.  Clair  Flats  Canal,  269-270; 

St.  Clair  Lake,    ) 

St.  Clair  River,  {261-63; 

St.  Croix,  261-63; 

St.  Francis,  263; 

St.  John,  263; 

St.  Lawrence,  261-62; 

St.  Mary's  Lake, 

St.  Mary's  River, 

St.  Mary's/Milk  System,  274; 

Saisaginaga,  261-262; 

Semliki,  346-47; 

Sobat,  348; 

Superior  Lake,  261-62; 

Tartares,  250; 

Tort,  252; 

Tsana  Lake,  350; 

Vanera,  253; 

Zuid-Willems-Waart,  259. 


261-62; 


INDEX  401 

Djuba.     See  Juba,  332. 

Dnieper,  boundary,  199;  navigation,  199:    {Polish  Waterways),  224. 

Dniester,  boundary,  200;  navigation,  199,  200:   (Polish  Waterways),  224. 

Doubs,  fisheries,  200;  navigation,  200. 

Douro,  navigation  of  200,  201. 

Dover   (1670),  Treaty  of,  88. 

Drake,  Sir  Francis,  Voyage  of  Circumnavigation,  71. 

Dredging,  Regulation  of,  in  River  Tendo,  350. 

Drewenz,  boundary,  201;  navigation,  201. 

Drina,  navigation  of,  201. 

Dubissa,  navigation  of.     See  Polish  Waterways,  224. 

Dues.     See  also:     Tolls. 

Dues,  Maritime,  levied  on  Pontus,  56. 

Dilna,  navigation  of,  201-202;  see  also:     Polish  Waterways. 

Dutch  East  India  Company,  72, 

Dwina.     See  Diina,  201. 

ECUADOKEAN  Waterways,  navigation  of,  300. 

Edward  III,  King  of  England,  Laws  of  Oleron,  38. 

Edward  and  George  Lake,  navigation  of,  330. 

Egypt,  commerce  of,  16;  reclusive  policy,  9;  abandoned,  17;  Sea-Power  of, 

18;   strategic  commercial  site  of,  15. 
Elbe,  invasion  of,  by  Northmen,  22 ;  navigation  of,  202,  203,  204 ;  tolls  pro- 
hibited, 202,  203,  204,  205. 
Eleanor  of  Guienne,  37. 

Elizabeth,  Queen  of  England,  denies  Spanish  Sovereignty  of  the  Seas,  71. 
Elster,  navigation  of,  205. 

Embargo,  United  States  establishes   (1807),  135. 
Ems,  boundary,  205,  206;  navigation,  205,  206. 
England,  sovereignty  of  on  Four  Seas,  82. 

English-Dutch  War,  important  engagements  of,  86,  87  n;  termination  of,  87. 
Enza,  boundary,  206. 
Eratosthenes,  globular  theory  of,  45. 
Eric  the  Red,  voyage  of,  4. 

Erie  Barge  Canal,  navigation,  263;  tolls  prohibited,  262-63. 
Escaut.     See  Scheldt,  243. 
Espierre  Canal,  206. 
Euphrates,  53;  navigation  of,  358. 
European  Waterways,  180. 
Euxine   (Black)   Sea,  trade-routes  on,  14,  17. 

FAEO,  boundary,  330;  fisheries,  331;  navigation,  330-331. 

Farran's  Point  Canal,  navigation,  263;   tolls  prohibited,  264. 

Fatiko,  navigation  of.     See  Niger,  341. 

Ferdinand  and  Isabella,  Columbus  at  Court  of,  46. 

Ferry  Service,  Regulation  of,  on: 

Boundary  Waterways  of  France  and  Sardinia,  183-184; 
Rhine,  233,  235. 
Fisheries,  Inland,  Mutual  Enjoyment  of,  in: 

Akwayafe,  323;  Awa,  324; 

Anebir,  323;  Bidassoa,  181,  182; 

Anyalo,  323;  Bliesse,  182; 


402 


Fisheries,  Inland,  Mutual  Enjoyment  of,  in   (Continued) 


Boundary  Waterways  of: 

Baden  and  Switzerland,   182; 

Belgium    and    The    Netherlands, 
183; 

Canada  and  The  United   States, 
261; 

France  and  Switzerland,  184; 

Germany  and  Great  Britain,  326 ; 

Italy  and  Switzerland,  184-185; 

Netherlands  and  Prussia,  185; 
Chad  Lake,  327; 
Champlain  Lake,  263; 
Constance  Lake,  187; 
Cross,  330; 
Cypress  Lake,  263; 
Danube,  188,  189,  198; 
Detroit,  270; 
Doubs,  200; 
Erie  Lake,  270; 
Faro,  330-331. 
Fowl  Lakes,  263; 
Garda  Lake,  207; 
Geneva  Lake,  207,  208; 
Great  Lakes,  269,  270; 
Huron  Lake,  270; 
Imba,  332; 
Inn,  210; 
Jacobs-Elf,  210; 
Kilunga,  333; 
Komadugu,  334; 
Lac  Bois  Blanc,  263 ; 
La  Croix  Lake,  263; 
Lake  of  the  Woods,  263; 
Little  Vermillion  Lake,  263; 
Lugano  Lake,  212,  213; 
Maggiore  Lake,  213,  214; 
Makona,  338; 
Mao  Kalo,  339; 
Mao  Bulo,  339; 
Mao  Kam,  339; 
Mao  Tati,  339; 
Memphremagog  Lake,  273; 


Minho,  219; 
Morno,  341 ; 
Muni,  341 ; 
Namecan  Lake,  263; 
Niagara,  270,  278; 
Ontario  Lake,  270,  279; 
Paswig,  222; 
Pigeon,  263; 
Pruth,  227; 
Rafin  Donga,  345 ; 
Rainy  Lake,  263; 
Rainy  River,  263; 
Red  River,  280,  281; 
Rhine,  228,  234-35,  236-38; 
Rhine-Scheldt     Connecting     Wa- 
ters, 239; 
Rhone,  240; 
Saal,  241 ; 
Sabine,  282 ; 

St.  Clair  Flats  Canal,  270; 
St.  Clair  Lake,  269-70,  283; 
St.  Clair  River,  270,  283; 
St.  Croix,  283,  284; 
St.  Francis,  263; 
St.  John,  285; 
St.  Lawrence,  263,  287-88; 
St.  Mary's  Lake,  269-70,  288; 
St.  Mary's  River,  270,  288; 
St.  Mary's  (Milk  System),  274; 
Saisaginaga,  263; 
Sarre,  242; 
Save,  243; 
Scheldt,  245; 
Superior  Lake,  270; 
Tendo,  350; 
Tiel,  350; 
Tornea,  252; 
Trave,  253; 
Tresa,  253; 
Utamboni,  351; 
Worn,  352; 
Yederam,  352, 


Meuse,  217; 

Fisheries,  Sea,  103;  international  participation  in,  114;  licenses  for. 
Queen  Elizabeth  protests  Danish  claims  to,  95; 
restrictions  on,  in  Mediterranean,  56; 
in  North  Atlantic,  93; 
in  North  Sea,  79,  94; 
right  to  enjoyment  of,  81. 
Fiske,  John,  on  spherical  form  of  World,  45. 


IZSTDEX  403 

Flag,  homage  to,  77,  78,  79,  86,  95,  97;  recognized  by  Treaty  of  Breda,  88: 

by  Treaty  of  Westmin- 
ster, 89; 
renounced    (1806),  106. 
Flag,  Maritime,  use  of,  164. 
Flag,  salute  to,  115. 
Fleet  System,  Spanish,  84  n. 
Floss-Graben,  boundary,  206;  navigation,  206. 
Fluvial  Navigation.     See  Navigation,  Freedom  of  Inland. 
Fly  River,  boundary,  358;  navigation,  358;  tolls  prohibited,  358. 
Fogones,    navigation,    308;    v^ar-vessels    prohibited,    308.     See   Paraguayan 

Waterways. 
Forced  Anchorages,  152. 
Foron,  boundary,  206,  207. 

Four  Seas,  definition  of  the  73;   sovereignty  on  the,  74. 
Fowl  Lakes,  boundary,  262;  diversion  of  waters,  263;  fisheries,  263;  navi- 
gation, 262-63. 
France,  competition  of  railways  and  waterways  in,  160. 
Francis  I,  King  of  France,  ignores  Spanish  claims,  70. 

Freedom  of  the  Seas,  effect  of  early  Sea- Laws  on,  29;  principles  of,  13,  28, 
53,  102; 

recognition  of,  101:  in  Roman  Law,  104; 
restrictions  on,  in  Bering  Sea,  121: 

during  war,  4,  110,  133,  149: 
voluntary,  112,  113. 
Fulton,  Robert,  invention  by,  of  steamship,  156. 

GAEEESi,  boundary,  331; 

Gallegos,  navigation  of,  296.     See  Argentine  Waterways. 

Galops  Canal,  navigation,  263;  tolls  prohibited,  264. 

Gama,  Vasco  da,  all-sea  route  discovered  by,  48;  voyage  of,  42,  44,  47. 

Gambella.     See  Baro,  324. 

Gambia,  navigation  of,  331. 

Gambler,  Admiral,  Revised  Instructions  of,  concerning  Flag-Homage,  106. 

Ganale.     See  Juba,  332. 

Garda  Lake,  boundary,  207;  fisheries,  207;  navigation,  207. 

Geneva  Lake,  boundary,  207;    fisheries,  207,  208;   navigation,  208;    traffic 

on,  164. 
Genoa,  claim  of,  to  Ligurian  Sea,  62;  sea-trade  of,  with  East,  23. 
Gentilis,  Alberico,  Advocatio  Hispanica  of,  72;  on  Mare  Clausum,  71,  81, 
Gera,  navigation  of,  208. 

Ghent,  Treaty  of   (1814),  119;  slave  trade  in,  120. 
Ghent  Canal.     See  Terneuzen  Canal,  251. 
Gibraltar,  cession  of,  to  England,  90. 
Gila,  boundary,  268;  navigation  of,  268. 
Glan,  boundary,  209. 
Goascoran,  navigation  of,  268,  269. 
Godfrey  of  Bouillon,  Holy  Crusade  of,  22. 
Gongola,  navigation  of,  341.     See  Niger. 
Goro,  boundary,  209. 

Grand  Canal,  navigation,  259;  tolls  prohibited,  357-58. 
Grand  Lake  of  Cambodia,  fisheries,  359;  tolls  prohibited,  359. 


404  i]!n>EX 

Great  Britain,  claims  of,  to  extensive  bays,  129:  to  marginal  sea,  in  Cey- 
lon, 128;  protest  of,  respecting  Bering  Sea  claims,  124. 
Great  Lakes,  boundary,  269-70;  commission  of  supervision,  270;  diversion 

of  waters,  270;    fisheries,   270;    navigation,   269,  270;   traffic 

on,  161;  war-vessels  restricted,  269. 
Great  Scarcies,  boundary,  331;  navigation,  331. 
Greece,  maritime  enterprise  of,  15,  27:  supplants  Phoenicia,  19;  trade  with 

Euxine,  18. 
Greeks,  voyages  of  early,  4. 

Grotius,  on  fluvial  navigation,  153,  154;  on  Mare  Liberum,  72,  80,  102. 
Guabiare.     See  Colombian  Waterways:     Ouaviare,  299. 
Guadiana,  boundary,  209;  navigation,  209. 
Guaviare,  navigation  of,  299.     See  Colombian  Waterways. 
Guayape,  navigation  of.     See  Honduras:     Patuca,  270-71. 
Gulf  of  Mexico,  appropriation  of,  by  Spain,  58. 

HAix,  W.  E.,  on  Freedom  of  the  Seas,  105;  on  present  extent  of  the  Mar- 
ginal Sea,  127. 

Han-kiang,  navigation,  359;  tolls  prohibited,  357-58, 

Hanseatic  League,  constitution  of,  50;  Ordinances  of,  26;  trade  of,  50. 

Harfleur,  Castilian  trade  with,  38. 

Henry  VII,  King  of  England,  ignores  Portuguese  and  Spanish  claims,  70. 

Hermance,  boundary,  209. 

High  or  Open  Sea,  definition  of,  118. 

Hoang-ho,  navigation,  359;  tolls  prohibited,  357-58. 

Holland,  invasion  of,  by  France,  89. 

Holy  Roman  Empire,  Princes  of,  impose  fluvial  tolls,  153. 

Honde,  boundary,  332. 

Hondo,  boundary,  270;  navigation,  270. 

Hondt,  navigation  of,  209,  210. 

Honduras,  navigation  of  waterways  of,  169,  270,  271. 

Huallaga,  navigation  of,  312.     See  Peruvian  Waterways. 

Huangpoo.     See  Whangpoo,  357,  370. 

Hun-ho,  navigation,  359-60;   tolls  prohibited,  357-58. 

Hun-ho  (Pai-ho  System),  navigation,  360;  tolls  prohibited,  357-58. 

Huron  Lake,  boundary,  271;  commission  of  supervision,  263;  diversion  of 
waters,  270;  fisheries,  261-63;  navigation,  269-70;  war-ves- 
sels restricted,  269-70. 

Hwai-ho,  navigation,  359;  tolls  prohibited,  357-58. 

Hwang-ho.     See  Hoang-ho,  357,  359. 

Hyabary.     See  Peruvian  Waterways:     Yavari,  312. 

Hydrum,  defeat  at,  of  Persians,  55. 

ICA.     See  Putumayo,  317. 

Imba,  boundary,  332;  fisheries,  332;  navigation,  332. 

Imperial  Canal.     See  Grand  Canal,  357,  359. 

Impounding   of   Waters.     See   Diversion,   Impounding   and   Utilization    of 

Waters. 
Impressment  of  Seamen,  119. 
Indian  Ocean,  appropriation  of,  by  Portugal,  58. 
Indus,  navigation  of,  360;  trade-route  on,  17. 
Inirida,  navigation  of,  299.    See  Colombian  Waterways. 


INDEX  405 

Inland  Waterways.    See:     Boundary,  Demarcation  of. 

Boundary  Waterways. 

Commission,  International  Supervisory. 

Diversion  of  Waters. 

Dredging,  Regulation  of. 

Ferry  Service,  Regulation  of. 

Fisheries,  Inland,  Mutual  Enjoyment  of. 

Individual  Names  of  Canals,  Lakes,  Rivers. 

Navigation,  Inland,  Freedom  of. 

Obstructions,  Prohibition  of. 

Tolls,  Prohibition  or  Regulation  of. 

War-Vessels,  Prohibition  of. 

War-Vessels,  Regulation  of  Navigation  by. 
Inland  Waterways,  navigation  of,  6,  150,  155,  169;  property  rights  on,  151; 

relation  of,  to  maritime  navigation,  5. 
Inland  Sea  of  Japan,  sovereignty  over,  131. 
Inn,  boundary,  210;   fisheries,  210;  navigation,  210. 
Institute  of  International  Law,  resolution  of   (1896),  on  use  of  Merchant 

Flags,  139. 
Interstate  Commerce  Act,  passage  of,  161. 
Ireng,  boundary,  301;  navigation,  301. 
Irrawaddy,  navigation  of,  360. 
Irtish,  boundary,  360;  navigation,  360,  363. 
Isango.     See  Semliki,  346. 

Islands  of  the  Sea,  waterways  of:     Borneo,  354;  New  Guinea,  358. 
Isthmian  Canal,  project  of,  under  Charles  V,  69. 
Itenes   (Itenez),  navigation  of,  301. 

JABON.     See  Belize,  261. 
Jacobs-Elf,  fisheries,  210;  navigation,  210. 
Jaguary,  navigation  of,  301. 
Jaliba,  navigation  of,  332. 
Japan,  Inland  Sea  of,  sovereignty  over,  131. 
Japura.     See  Yapura,  322. 
Jefferson,  Thomas,  on  piracy,  109. 
Jenkins,  Sir  Leoline,  charge  of,  to  Cinque  Ports,  74; 
on  Sovereignty  of  the  Seas,  99. 
Jipe  Lake,  boundary,  332. 

John,  King  of  England,  Marine  Ordinance   (1200)   of,  75. 
John,  King  of  Portugal,  44;  remonstrance  of,  67. 
Jora,  boundary,  332. 

Juba,  boundary,  332,  333;  navigation,  332. 
Julius  II,  Pope,  sanctions  Treaty  of  Tordesillas  (1506),  68. 
Jura,  navigation  of,  211. 
Justinian,  Institutes  of,  28. 

KADUNA,  navigation  of,  341.     See  Niger. 

Kalombo,  boundary,  333;  commission  of  supervision,  328;  navigation,  333. 

Kambompo.     See  Cambompo,  326. 

Kandcko,  commission  of  supervision,  328;  navigation,  333. 

Kara-Kourt,  boundary,  211. 

Karun,  navigation  of,  169,  360,  361. 


406  INDEX 

Kassai,  boundary,  333;  commission  of  supervision,  328;  navigation,  333. 

Kent,  James,  on  Freedom  of  the  Seas,  5. 

Kibish.     See  Sacchi,  346. 

Kilambo.     See  Kalombo,  333. 

Kilunga   (Kilange),  boundary,  333,  334;  fisheries,  334;  navigation,  334. 

Kivu  Lake,  commission  of  supervision,  334;  navigation,  334. 

Kodyma,  navigation,  224.     See  Polish  Waterways. 

Komadugu,  boundary,  334;   fisheries,  334. 

Komati.     See  Sabi,  346. 

Kongama,  boundary,  211;  navigation,  211. 

Konge-Aa,  boundary,  211. 

Kouban,  boundary,  211. 

Kuando.     See  Chobe,  328. 

Kuango.     See  Lukualli,  337. 

Kubango,  boundary,  334. 

Kuilu,  boundary,  334;  commission  of  supervision,  334;  navigation,  334. 

Kulupene.     See  Dakka,  330. 

Kulusulo,  boundary,  334. 

Kunene.     See  Cunene,  330. 

Kwa,  commission  of  supervision,  335;  navigation,  335. 

Kwando.     See  Chobe,  328. 

Kwango.     See  Lukualli,  337. 

LAC  BOis  BLANC,  boundary,  261-63;  commission  of  supervision,  263;  diver- 
sion of  waters,  263;  fisheries,  263;  navigation,  262,  263. 

Lachine  Canal,  navigation,  263;   tolls  prohibited,  263.     See  Canals. 

La  Croix  Lal^ie,  boundary,  261-63;  commission  of  supervision,  263;  diver- 
sion of  waters,  263;  fisheries,  263;  navigation,  262,  263. 

Lacustrine  Fisheries.     See  Fisheries,  Inland,  Mutual  Enjoyment  of. 

Lagoa  de  Los  Patos,  navigation  of,  301. 

Lahn,  navigation  of,  211. 

Laiblach,  boundary,  211. 

Lake  of  the  Woods,  boundary,  261-63;  commission  of  supervision,  263; 
diversion  of  waters,  263;  fisheries,  263;  navigation, 
262,  263. 

Lakes.     See  Individual  Names. 

Lakka.     See  Dakka,  330. 

La  Laire,  boundary,  211. 

Lande.     See  Lunde,  337. 

Land  van  Staten,  England  claims  Sea  to,  89. 

Lauter,  boundary,  212. 

Lavua.     See  Luapula,  336. 

Law,  Maritime,  exceptional  to  Law  of  the  Land,  27;  growth  of,  25,  28-30, 
35,  37 ;  influence  of,  24,  35,  38,  40,  42 ;  jurisdiction  of,  26 ; 
necessity  of,  24,  25,  27-29;  obligation  of,  universal,  25,  26; 
protection  afforded  by,  24,  40,  42;  sources  of,  24-29,  32, 
34-36,  38,  40. 

Lax-Elf,  boundary,  212. 

Lean,  navigation  of,  272,  273. 

Leek,  boundary,  212;   navigation,  212. 

Leo  X,  Papal  Bull  (1514)  of,  to  Portugal,  68. 

Leopold  II  Lake,  commission  of  supervision,  335;  navigation,  335. 


INDEX  407 

Lepanto,  defeat  at,  of  Turks,  63. 

Leure,  Castilian  trade  with,  38. 

Liao-ho,  navigation,  361;   tolls  prohibited,  357. 

Lief  the  Lucky,  voyage  of,  4. 

Ligurian  Sea,  appropriation  of,  by  Genoa,  58. 

Limpopo,  navigation  of,  335, 

Linguet,  Simon,  on  freedom  of  fluvial  navigation,  155. 

Liscoarta,  boundary,  212. 

List,  Friedrich,  on  importance  of  Sea-Communications,  13. 

Little  Vermillion  Lake,  boundary,  262-63;  commission  of  supervision,  263; 
diversion  of  waters,  263;  fisheries,  263;  naviga- 
tion, 262,  263. 

Llivia  Canal,  commission  of  supervision,  212;  diversion  of  waters,  212. 

Loange,  commission  of  supervision,  328;  navigation,  328.  See  Congo  Sys- 
tem :     Kassai. 

Loangwa,  boundary,  335. 

Lobai,  commission  of  supervision,  336;  navigation,  335,  336, 

Logone   (Logogne),  navigation,  336. 

Lomami,  commission  of  supervision,  336;  navigation,  336, 

Long  Parliament,  Navigation  Act  of,  85. 

Louis  VII,  Holy  Crusade  of,  23. 

Louis  XIV,  alliance  of,  with  Charles  II,  88 ;  marine  ordinances  of,  26. 

Lualaba.     See  Luapula,  336. 

Luapula,  boundary,  336;  commission  of  supervision,  336;  navigation,  336. 

Lucalla,  boundary,  337. 

Luculla.     See  Lucalla,  337. 

Lugano  Lake,  fisheries,  212,  213. 

Lukualli,  boundary,  337;  commission  of  supervision,  337;  navigation,  337, 

Lukuga,  commission  of  supervision,  337;   navigation,  337. 

Lulanga,  commission  of  supervision,  337;  navigation,  337; 

Lunde,  navigation  of,  337. 

Lwan-ho,  navigation,  362;  tolls  prohibited,  357. 

Lys,  boundary,  213;  navigation,  213;  tolls  prohibited,  213. 

MADEIRA,  navigation  of,  301,  302. 

Madre  de  Dios,  navigation  of,  312.     See  Peruvian  Waterways. 

Magdalena,  navigation  of,  299.     See  Colombian  Waterways. 

Magellan,  voyage  of,  48,  49. 

Maggiore  Lake,  boundary,  213;   fisheries,  213,  214;  navigation,  214. 

Magna  Graecia,  founding  of,  4. 

Magra,  boundary,  214. 

Maia,  boundary,  338;  navigation,  338. 

Maieteb,  boundary,  338. 

Main,  navigation,  214,  215;  obstructions,  prohibited,  214;  tolls  prohibited, 

215. 
Maio  Kalo.     See  Mao  Kalo,  339. 
Maio  Kam.     See  Mao  Kam,  339. 
Maio  M'Bulo.     See  Mao  Bulo,  339. 
Maio  Tati.     See  Mao  Tati,  399. 

Makona,  boundary,  338;  fisheries,  338;  navigation,  338. 
Makua,  commission  of  supervision,  328;  navigation,  328.     See  Congo  Sys- 
tem, Vbangi. 


408  INDEX 

Makwoi,  boundary,  338;  navigation,  338. 

Malagarazi.     See  Ugala,  351. 

Malta,  Sea-fight  oflF,  63, 

Mamore,  navigation,  297,  302. 

Mamoudie  Canal,  navigation  of,  338. 

Manoh,  navigation  of,  338,  339. 

Mao  Bulo,  boundary,  339;  fisheries,  339;  navigation,  339. 

Mao  Kalo,  boundary,  339;   fisheries,  339;   navigation,  339. 

Mao  Kam,  boundary,  339;   fisheries,  339;  navigation,  339. 

Mao  Tati,    boundary,  339;  fisheries,  339;  navigation,  339. 

Mapire,  navigation  of,  302. 

Maracaibo  Lake,  navigation  of,  302. 

Maranon,  navigation  of,  312.     See  Peruvian  Waterways. 

Mareb,  boundary,  339. 

Mare  Clausum,  doctrine  of,  97,  100. 

Mare  Liberum,  100,  102. 

Marginal  Sea,  width  of,  127;  excessive  extension  of,  128,  129. 

Maritime  Commerce,  Roman  contempt  for,  19. 

Maritime  Discovery,  causes  of,  43,  44,  46;  influence  of,  on  commerce,  42, 
47,  49,  50;  notable  voyages  of,  42-44,  46,  48,  49;  re- 
striction of,  by  ignorance,  45. 

Maritime  Law.     See  Law,  Maritime. 

Maritime  Occupation,  validity  of,  105. 

Marne-Rhine  Canal,  215. 

Marquari,  boundary,  339;  fisheries,  339;  navigation,  339. 

Marseilles,  war  with  Carthage,  56. 

Matumba  Lake.     See  Tumba  Lake,  350. 

Mauwa,  boundary,  339;  navigation,  339. 

Mayo-Kebbi,  navigation  of,  340. 

Mazoe,  navigation  of,  340. 

Mediterranean  Sea,  20,  54;  control  of,  at  Gibraltar,  90;  decline  of,  as 
Trade-Area,  50;  early  trade-route,  14;  highway  be- 
tween three  continents,  14;  navigation  of,  restricted 
by  Barbary  States,  119:  by  pirates,  109;  trade  on, 
restricted,  44. 

Medows,  Sir  Philip,  on  Sea-Dominion,  99,  n. 

Mekong,  navigation  of,  362. 

Mekwer.     See  Marquari,  339. 

Mcili,  boundary,  340. 

Meloria,  Sea-Fight  oflf,  62. 

Memel.     See  Niemen,  221. 

Memphremagog  Lake,  boundary,  262,  263;  commission  of  supervision,  263; 
diversion  of  waters,  263;  fisheries,  263,  273; 
navigation,  262,  263,  273. 

Mendoza,  Bernardine,  protests  to  Queen  Elizabeth,  71. 

Merchant  Flag,  use  of,  139,  139, ». 

Merim  Lake,  navigation  of,  303. 

Mesopotamia,  trade  of,  18. 

Meta,  navigation  of,  299.     See  Colombian  Waterways. 

Meuse,  diversion  of  waters,  218;  fisheries,  217;  navigation,  215,  216,  217, 
218;  obstructions  prohibited,  218;  tolls  prohibited,  217,  218. 

Mfini,  commission  of  supervision,  340;  navigation,  340. 


INDEX  409 

Michigan  Lake,  navigation  of,  273. 

Milan  Decree   (1807),  135. 

Milk-St.  Mary  River  System,  commission  of  supervision,  274;  diversion  of 

waters,  274. 
Mill,  John  Stuart,  advocates  British  commercial  policy,  107. 
Mincio,  boundary,  218,  219;  obstructions  forbidden,  218. 
Mines,  marine  contact,  134. 
Minho,  fisheries,  219. 

Min-kiang,  navigation,  362,  363;  tolls  prohibited,  357. 
Minorca,  cession  of,  to  England,  90. 
Mississippi,  boundary,  274,  276;   navigable  extent  of,   161;   navigation  of, 

274-76;  tolls  prohibited,  274. 
Moa.     See  Makona,  338. 
Mobile,  navigation  of,  277. 
Modification  Act,  British,  107. 
Moero  Lake.     See  Mweru  Lake,  341, 
Mombezi.     See  Pungwe,  344. 
Mongolian  Waterways,  navigation  of,  363. 
Mono,  navigation  of,  340,  341. 

Montesquieu,  Charles,  on  importance  of  commerce,  9. 
Morno,  boundary,  341;  fisheries,  341;  navigation,  341. 
Morona,  navigation  of,  312.     See  Peruvian  Waterways. 
Morro,  boundary,  341;  navigation,  341. 
Moselle,  boundary,  219,  220;  navigation,  219,  200. 
Moslem  Power,  expansion  of,  43. 
Muni,  fisheries,  341;  navigation,  341. 
Muonis,  navigation  of,  220. 

Murray  Canal,  navigation,  263,  264;  tolls  prohibited,  264. 
Murray,  navigation  of,  363,  364. 
Muscha,  navigation  of,  224.     See  Polish  Waterways. 
Mutan-kiang,  navigation  of,  364. 
Mweru,  boundary,  341;  commission  of  supervision,  341;  navigation,  341. 

NAHE,  navigation  of,  220. 

Namecan  Lake,  boundary,  262,  263 ;  commission  of  supervision,  263 ;  diver- 
sion of  waters,  263;  fisheries,  263;  navigation,  262,  263. 

Napo,  navigation  of,  299,  300.     See  Colombian  Waterways. 

Napoleon,  appreciation  by,  of  Sea-Power,  96;  issuance  by,  of  Bayonne  De- 
cree, 136:  of  Milan  Decree,  135;  wars  of,  101. 

Narew,  navigation  of,  224.     See  Polish  Waterways. 

Nationality,  Corporate,  139. 

Navigation  Act  (1651),  abolition  of,  108;  enforcement  of,  causes  war,  86; 
modification  of,  88,  107;  passage  of,  83;  increases 
England's  maritime  resources,  89 ;  renews  English- 
Dutch  conflict,  87;  policy  of,  83,  84;  restrictions 
of,  83,  85;  unwarranted  limitations  of,  on  High 
Seas,  84. 

Navigation,  Inland,  Freedom  of,  150,  152,  153,  156,  157; 

Subject  to  equitable  tolls  for  maintenance  of  navigable  channels  and  to  appro- 
priate fiscal,  navigation,  pilotage,  police,  and  sanitary  regulations. 

on  the: 

Aa,  224;  Aby  Lagoon,  322; 

Abuna,  297;  Addo,  322; 


410 


INDEX 


Navigation,  Inland,  Freedom  of   (Continued) 


on  the: 
Adige,  180; 
Aguan,  260; 
Aguarico,  299; 
Ajarra,  322; 
Akwayafe,  323; 
Albert  Nyanza,  323; 
Amakuru,  292; 
Amazon,  293-96; 
Amur,   354; 
Anebir,  323; 
Anyalo,  323; 
Apa,  308; 
Apure,  296; 
Aquidaban,  308; 
Araguary,  296; 
Argentine  Waterways,  296; 
Argun,  354; 
Arkansas,  261 ; 
Aruwimi,   324; 
Atrato,  299; 
Augustowo  Canal,  224; 
Awa,  324; 

Bachorze  Canal,  224; 
Barima,  297; 
Belize,  261; 
Beni,  297; 
Benue,  324,  325: 
Beresina  Canal,  224; 
Beresina  River,  224; 
Bidassoa,  181,  182; 
Black  River  Canal,  263; 
Black  Volta,  325 ; 
Bolivian  Waterways,  297,  298; 
Borneo,  Waterways  of,  354,  355; 
Boundary  Waterways  of: 

Austria/Sardinia,  182; 

Austria/Servia,   182; 

Belgium/France/Germany,  183 ; 

Belgium/Fl-ance/Germany/Netli- 
erlands,  183; 

Belgium/Netherlands,  183; 

Bolivia/Brazil,  298 ; 

Brazil/Colombia,  298; 

Brazil/Uruguay,  298; 

Canada/United  States,  261; 

France/Germany,  183; 

France/Germany   (Africa),  325; 

France/Liberia,  325; 

Germany/Great  Britain,  326; 

Hanover/Lubeck,  184; 


Boundary  Waterways  of  (Cont'd)  : 

Netherlands/Prussia,   185 ; 

Portugal/Spain,   185; 

Russia/Sweden,   185; 
Boyana,  185,  186; 
Bromberg  Canal,   186,  224; 
Bug   (Black  Sea),  224; 
Bug  (Vistula  System),  186,  224; 
Bug-Pripet  Canal,  224; 
Busi,  326; 
Campo,  326; 
Canals,  Canadian,  263; 

United  States,  264; 
Canton,  355,  356; 
Cao-bang,  356; 
Cascade  Canal,  267 ; 
Casiquiare  Canal,  293,  303. 

( Amazon-Orinoco  System ) . 
Caspian  Sea,  356; 
Cauca,  299; 
Cavally,  326; 
Celilo  Canal,  267; 
Chad  Lake,  326,  327; 
Chamalecon,  265,  266; 
Chambira,  300,  312; 
Chambly  Canal,  263-64; 
Champlain  Canal,  263-64; 
Champlain  Lake,  266; 
Chapare,  298; 
.Cbico,  296; 
Chimore,  298,  299; 
Chinese     Inland     Waterways,     356, 

357,  358; 
Choluteca,  266; 
Chubut,  296; 
Coca,  299,  300; 
Coco,  271; 

Colombian  Waterways,  299; 
Colorado   (Argentina),  296; 
Colorado,  266,  267; 
Columbia,  267; 
Congo,  328,  329; 
Coni,  300; 

Constance  Lake,   186,   187,   188; 
Corioco,  300; 
Cornwall  Canal,  263; 
Crocodile,  346; 
Cross,   330; 
Curaray,  300,  312; 
Cypress  Lake,  262,  263 ; 
Danube,   188-199; 


411 


Navigation,  Inland,  Freedom  of    (Continued) 
on  the: 


Deseado,  296; 

Detroit,  267; 

Dnieper,  199,  224; 

Dniester,  199,  200,  224; 

Doubs,  200; 

Douro,  200,  201; 

Drewenz,  201; 

Drina,  201; 

Dubissa,  224; 

Diina,  201,  202,  224; 

Ecuadorean  Waterways,  300; 

Edward  and  George  Lake,  330; 

Elbe,  202,  203,  204; 

Elster,  205; 

Ems,  205,  206; 

Erie  Barge  Canal,  264; 

Erie  Lake,  268 ; 

Espierre  Canal,  206; 

Euphrates,   358; 

Faro,  330,  331; 

Farran's  Point  Canal,  263; 

Fatiko,  341; 

Floss-Graben,  206; 

Fly  River,  358; 

Fogones,  308; 

Fowl  Lakes,  262,  263 ; 

Gallegos,  296; 

Galops  Canal,  263; 

Gambia,  331; 

Garda  Lake,  207; 

Geneva  Lake,  208; 

Gera,  208; 

Gila,  288; 

Goascoran,  268,  269; 

Gongola,  341; 

Grand  Canal,  359; 

Great  Lakes,  269,  270; 

Great  Scareies,  331; 

Guadiana,  209; 

Guaviare,  299; 

Guayape,  270,  271; 

Han-kiang,  359; 

Hoang-ho,   359; 

Hondo,  270; 

Hondt,  209,   210; 

Honduran  Waterways,  270,  271; 

Huallaga,  312; 

Hun-ho,  359; 

Hun-ho    (Pai-ho  System),  360; 

Huron  Lake,  271 ; 


Hwai-ho,  360; 

Jmba,  332; 

Indus,  360; 

Inirida,  299; 

Inn,  210; 

Ireng,  301; 

Irrawaddy,  360; 

Irtish,  360; 

Itenes,  301; 

Jacobs-Elf,  210; 

Jaguary,  301; 

Jaliba,  332; 

Juba,  332 ; 

Jura,  211; 

Kaduna,  341; 

Kalombo,  333; 

Kandcko,  333; 

Karun,  360,  361; 

Kassai,  333; 

Kilunga,  333,  334; 

Kivu  Lake,  334; 

Kodyma,  224; 

Kongama,  211; 

Kuilu,  334; 

Kwa,  335; 

Lac  Bois  Blanc,  262,  263; 

Lachine  Canal,  263; 

La  Croix  Lake,  262,  263 ; 

Lagoa  de  Los  Patos,  301 ; 

Lahn,  211; 

Lake  of  the  Woods,  272 ; 

Lean,  272,  273; 

Leek,  212; 

Leopold  II  Lake,  335; 

Liao-ho,  361; 

Limpopo,  335; 

Little  Vermillion  Lake,  262,  263; 

Loange    (Kassai),  328; 

Lobai,  335,  336; 

Logone,  336; 

Lomami,  336; 

Luapula,  336; 

Lukualli,  337; 

Lukuga,  337; 

Lulanga,  328,  337; 

Lunde,  337; 

Lwan-ho,  362; 

Lys,  213; 

Madeira,  301,  302; 

Madre  de  Dies,  312: 


412 


Navigation,  Inland,  Freedom  of    (Continued) 
on  the: 


Magdalena,  299; 

Maggiore  Lake,  213; 

Maia,  338; 

Main,  214,  215; 

Makona,  338; 

Makua,  328; 

Makwoi,  338; 

Mamore,  302; 

Mamoudie  Canal,  338; 

Manoh,  338,  339; 

Mao  Bulo,  339; 

Mao  Kalo,  339; 

Mao  Kam,  339; 

Mao  Tati,  339; 

Mapire,  302; 

Maracaibo,  302; 

Maranon,  312; 

Marne-Rhine  Canal,  215; 

Marquari,  339; 

Mauwa,  339; 

Mayo-Kebbi,  340; 

Mazoe,  340; 

Mekong,  362; 

Memphremagog  Lake,  273; 

Merim  Lake,  303; 

Meta,  299; 

Meuse,  215,  216,  217,  218; 

Mflni,  340; 

Michigan  Lake,  373; 

Min-kiang,  362,  363; 

Mississippi,  274,  275,  276; 

Mobile,  277; 

Mongolian  Waterways,  363; 

Mono,  340,  341; 

Morno,  341; 

Morona,  312; 

Morro,  341; 

Moselle,  219,  220; 

Muni,  341; 

Muonis,  220; 

Murray  Canal,  263; 

Murray    {Australia),   363,  364; 

Muscha,  224; 

Mutan-kiang,  364; 

Mweru,  Lake,  341 ; 

Nahe,  220; 

Namecan  Lake,  261-63; 

Napo,  299,  300,  312; 

Narew,  224; 

Neckar,  220,  221 ; 


Negro    (Argentina),  296; 

Negro   (Bolivia),  297; 

Negro    (Brazil),  303; 

Negro    (Honduras),  277; 

Neisse,  221 ; 

Netze,  221,  224; 

Newjasha,  224; 

Niagara,  269,  270,  278; 

Nicaragua  Lake,  278; 

Niemen,  221,  224; 

Niers  Canal,  221; 

Niers  River,  221; 

Niger,  341,  342; 

Nile,  342,  343; 

Njemenek,  224; 

Nonna,  364; 

Nuon,  343; 

Nyassa  Lake,  343 ; 

Oder,  222; 

Oginski  Canal,  224; 

Onon,  364; 

Ontario  Lake,  278,  279; 

Orinoco,  303,  304; 

Orkhon,  364; 

Oswego  Canal,  264; 

Ottawa  Canal,  263; 

Oure,  222; 

Pai-ho,  364,  365; 

Pama,  344; 

Paraguay,  305,  306,  307; 

Paraguayayan   Waterways,   308 ; 

Parana,  308-312; 

Parchanie  Canal,  224; 

Pastaca,  300,  312; 

Paswig,  222; 

Patuca,  279; 

Paute,  300,  312; 

Pei-kiang,  365; 

Peruvian  Waterways,  312,  313; 

Pigeon,  262,  263; 

Pilcomayo,  313,  314; 

Piliza,  224; 

Piray,  314; 

Plata,  315,  316,  317; 

Po.  222,  223,  224; 

Polish  Waterwa.ys,  224,  225; 

Percupine,  279,  280; 

Po-Yang-Lu  Lake,  365; 

Pripet,  224; 

Prosna,  224; 


INDEX 


413 


Navigation,  Inland,  Freedom  of   (Contmued) 
on  the: 


Pruth,  224,  225,  226,  227; 
Pungwe,  344; 
Putumayo,  317; 
Rafin  Donga,  345; 
Rainy  Lake,  280; 
Rainy  River,  280; 
Rapide  Plat  Canal,  263; 
Red  River,  280,  281; 
Red  River  of  the  North,  280; 
Rhine,  227-238; 
Rhine- Rhone  Canal,  238; 
Rhine- Scheldt     Connecting     Water- 
ways, 238,  239; 
Rhine- Weser  Canal,  239; 
Rhone,  239; 
Rideau  Canal,  263; 
Rio  Grande,  281; 
Rusizi,  346; 
Saal,  241; 
Sabi,  346; 
Sabine,  282 ; 

St.  Andrew's  Canal,  263; 
St.  Clair  Flats  Canal,  269,  270; 
St.  Clair  Lake,  269,  270,  283; 
St.  Clair  River,  269,  270,  283; 
St.  Croix,  283,  284; 
St.  Francis,  284; 
St.  John,  285,  286; 
St.  Lawrence,  286,  287,  288; 
St.  Mary's  Lake,  288 ; 
St.  Mary's  River,  288; 
St.  Ours  Canal,  263; 
St.  Peter's  Canal,  263; 
Saisaginaga,  262,  263; 
Salado,  296; 
Salza,  241; 
Sambre,  241; 
San,  242 ; 
San-fa,  366; 
San  Francisco,  318; 
Sanga,  346; 
San  Gonzola,  318; 
San  Juan,  289; 
San   Pedro,   318; 
Santa  Cruz,  296; 
Santiago,  312; 

Santiago    (Honduras),  270,  271; 
Sarre  Canal,  242,  243; 
Sault  Sainte  Marie  Canal,  263,  264 ; 
Save,  243; 


Sbrucz,  224; 

Schara,  224; 

Scheldt,  243-48; 

Scheschupa,  224; 

Schwarze-Elster,  249; 

Scutari  Lake,  249; 

Selenga,  366; 

Semoy,  249; 

Sereth,  224; 

Shari,  347; 

Shat-el-Arab,  366; 

Shire,  347,  348; 

Siang-kiang,  366; 

Sogamoso,  299; 

Sokoto,  348; 

Song-ki-kong,  366; 

Songkoi,  366,  367; 

Soulanges  Canal,  263; 

Stecknitz  Canal,  250; 

Stikine,  290; 

Sulaco     (Honduras:      Ulua),     270, 

271; 
Sungari,   367; 
Superior  Lake,  291; 
Tagus,  250; 
Takutu,  318; 
Tanganyika  Lake,  349; 
Tapajoz,  318,  319; 
Tembe-Counda,  341; 
Tendo  Lagoon,  350; 
Tendo  River,  350; 
Terneuzen   Canal,   251,   252; 
Teterew,  224; 
Ticino,  252; 
Tiel,  350; 
Tigre,  300,  312; 
Tigris,  368; 
Tocantins,  319; 
Tornea,  252; 
Trave,  253; 
Trent  Canal,  263; 
Tsien-Tang,  368; 
Tso-kiang,  368; 
Tumba,  350; 
Tumen,  368; 
Tung-kiang,  368; 
Tung-Ting-Lu  Lake,  369; 
Ubangi,  351; 
Ucayli,  312; 
Ugala,  351; 


414  INDEX 

Navigation,  Inland,  Freedom  of   (Continued)  : 
on  the: 

Ulua,  291;  Windau  Canal,  224; 

Unstrut,  253;  Windau  Paver,  224; 

Uruguay,  319,  320,  321;  Wjeprsh,  224; 

Ussuri,  369;  Worn,  352; 

Utamboni,  351;  Wu-kiang,  372; 

Valencia  Lake,  321;  Yalu,  372,  373; 

Venezuelan   Waterways,   321;  Yang-tsze-kiang,  373,  374; 

Vermejo,  321,  322;  Yapura,  322; 

Vistula,  224,  253,  254,  255;  Yavari,  312; 

Waal,  255;  Yederam,  352; 

Warthe,  224,  255;  Yenisei,  374; 

Waupes,  299;  Yoja,  270,  271; 

Weisse-Elster,  255,  256;  Yssel,  258; 

Welland  Canal,  263,  264;  Yukon,  292; 

Weser,  256,  257;  Yung-kiang,  374,  375; 

West,  369,  370;  Zambesi,  352,  353; 

Whangpoo,  370,  371,  372;  Zatsan  Lake,  375; 

Wilija,  224;  Zuid-Willems-Waart,  258,  259; 

Williamsburg  Canal,  263;  Zwin  Canal,  259,  260. 

Navigation,  Maritime,  restrictions  on,  during  war,  133,  134,  149. 
Navigation,  Steam,   162. 

Necho,  King  of  Egypt,  Circumnavigation  of  Africa  in  reign  of,  55. 
Neckar,    navigation,    220,    221;    obstructions    prohibited,    221;    tolls    abol- 
ished, 220. 
Negro    (Argentina) ,  navigation  of,  296. 
Negro   (Bolivia),  navigation  of,  297. 
Negro    (Brazil),  navigation  of,  303. 
Negro   (Honduras),  navigation  of,  277. 
Neisse,  navigation  of,  221. 
Netherlands,  Sea-Trade  of,  jeopardized,  85,  n. 
Netze,  navigation  of,  221,  224. 
Neutralitj'  of  Inland  Waterways,  151. 
New  Guinea,  Fly  River,  navigation  of,  166,  358. 
Newjasha,  navigation  of,  224. 
New  Netherlands,  cession  of,  to  England,  87. 
New  Sweden,  cession  of,  to  England,  88. 

Niagara,  boundary,  277;  commission  of  supervision,  269,  270;  diversion  of 
waters,   277;    fisheries,   278;    navigation,   261-63,   278; 
War-vessels  restricted,  269,  270. 
Nicaragua  Lake,  navigation  of,  278. 
Nicholas  V,  Papal  Bull   (1454)  of,  64. 
Niemen,  navigation  of,  221,  224;  tolls  prohibited,  221. 
Niers  Canal,  navigation  of,  221; 
Niers  River,  navigation  of,  221. 

Niger,  boundary,  342;  diversion  of  waters,  342;  navigation,  341,  342, 
Nigre.     See  Peruvian  Waterways:      Tigre,  312. 

Nile,  boundary,  343;   diversion  of  waters,  343;   navigation,  342,  343;   ob- 
structions forbidden,  343. 
Njemenek,  navigation  of,  224. 
Nonna,  navigation  of,  364. 


Normans,  invasions  of,  22. 

Norsemen,  early  trans-Atlantic  voyages  of  the,  43. 

North  American  Waterways,  260. 

Nuon,  boundary,  343;  navigation,  343. 

Nyassa  Lake,  boundary,  343,  navigation,  343. 

OBSTRUCTIONS,  Prohibition  of, 
on  the: 

Colorado,  267;  Rhine-Scheldt  Connect-     Terneuzen   Canal,  251; 

Main,  214;  ing  Waterways,  239;     Trave,  253; 

Meuse,  218;  Rio  Grande,  281,  282;     Warthe,  255; 

Neckar,  221 ;  St.  Lawrence,  287 ;  Zuid  -  Willems  -  Waart, 

Nile,  343;  Scheldt,   245;  259. 

Rhine,  232,  235;  Stecknitz  Canal,  250; 

Ochotsk,  Sea  of,  claims  to  fisheries  in,  122. 
Ocpara,  boundary,  343,  344. 
Oder,  boundary,  221-22;  navigation,  222. 
Oginski  Canal,  224. 
Okavango.     See  Kubango,  334. 
Okpa.     See  Ocpara,  343. 
Old  Calabar.     See  Cross,  329. 

Oleron,  Laws   (Rolls)   of,  25,  31,  35,  36,  37,  39,  40. 
Oliphants.     See  Limpopo,  335. 
Onon,  navigation  of,  364. 

Ontario  Lake,  boundary,  278,  279;   commission  of  supervision,  263;  diver- 
sion  of   waters,    263;    fisheries,    263,    279;    navigation,   269, 
270,  279;   War- Vessels  restricted,  278,  279. 
Orange,  boundary,  344. 
Orinoco,  navigation  of,  163,  303,  304. 
Orkhon,  navigation  of,  364. 

Oswego  Canal,  navigation,  263-64 ;  tolls  prohibited,  264. 
Ottawa  Canal,  navigation,  263;  tolls  prohibited,  264. 
Cure,  boundary,  222;  navigation,  222, 
Outemboni.     See  Utamboni,  351. 
Oyapock,  boundary,  304. 

PACIFIC  OCEAN,  appropriation  of,  by  Spain,  58. 
Pai-ho,  navigation,  364,  365;  tolls  prohibited,  364. 
Pama,  commission  of  supervision,  344;  navigation,  344. 
Paraguay,  navigation,  163,  165,  305,  306,  307;  tolls  prohibited,  306;   War- 
Vessels  prohibited,  308;   regulated,  306. 
Paraguayan  Waterways,  navigation,  308;    War-Vessels  prohibited,  308 
Parana,   boundary,   308;    navigation,    163,    165,    308-312;    tolls   prohibited, 

311;   War-Vessels  prohibited,  311:  regulated,  311. 
Parchanie  Canal,  navigation  of,  224. 
Paris,  Treaty  of  (1814),  155. 
Pastaca,  navigation  of,  300,  312. 
Paswig  Lakes,  boundary,  222. 

Paswig  River,  boundary,  222;  fisheries,  222;  navigation,  222. 
Patuca,  navigation  of,  279. 
Paul  I,  Emperor  of  Russia,  ukase  of,  121. 
Paute,  navigation  of,  300,  312. 
Pearl.     See  Canton,  355. 


416  INDEX 

Pearl  Fisheries,  Ceylon,  128. 

Pei-ho.     See  Pai-ho,  364. 

Pei-kiang,  navigation,  365;  tolls  prohibited,  357. 

Pequena.     See  Tigre,  300,  312. 

Pericles,  appeal  of,  for  Maritime  Development,  19. 

Peruvian  Waterways,  navigation  of,  312,  313. 

Philip  II,  King  of  Spain,  78. 

Phoenicia,  influence  of,  in  Mediterranean,  19;   Maritime  Enterprise  of,  9, 

15,  16,  18,  54. 
Pibor,  boundary,  344. 
Pigeon,  boundary,  262,  263;   commission  of  supervision,  263;   diversion  of 

waters,  263;  fisheries,  263;  navigation,  262,  263. 
Pilcomayo,  navigation,  313,  314;  War-Vessels  prohibited,  308,  314. 
Piliza,  navigation  of,  224. 
Piracy,  Mediterranean,  109. 
Piray,  navigation  of,  314. 

Plata,  Rio  de  la,  navigation,  315,  316,  317;  War-Vessels  restricted,  316. 
Po,  boundary,  222,  223,  224;  navigation,  223,  224. 
Podhorce,  boundary,  224. 
Polish  Waterways,  navigation  of,  224,  225. 
Pomponious  Mela,  theory  of,  as  to  earth's  form,  45. 
Porcupine,  navigation  of,  279,  280. 
Porta,  boundary,  225. 

Po-Yang-Lu  Lake,  navigation,  365;  tolls  prohibited,  357. 
Prince  Henry  the  Navigator,  Papal  Grant  to,  of  all  discoveries,  44. 
Pripet,  navigation  of,  224. 
Prosna,  boundary,  225;  navigation,  224. 
Pruth,  boundary,  225,  226;  commission  of  supervision,  226,  227  j  fisheries, 

227;   navigation,  224,  226,  227. 
Pungwe,  boundary,  345;  navigation,  244. 
Punic  War,  First,  20,  27;  Third,  20. 
Putumayo,  navigation,  312;   War -Vessels  regulated,  317. 
Puycerda  Canal,  boundary,  227;  diversion  of  waters,  227. 

QUEiCH,  boundary,  227. 

RAFiN  DONGA,  boundary,  345;  fisheries,  345;  navigation,  345. 

Raliad,  boundary,  345. 

Rainy  Lake,     )  boundary,  280;  commission  of  supervision,  263;  division  of 

Rainy  River,   J  waters,  263;   fisheries,  280;   navigation,  280. 

Raleigh,  Sir  Walter,  on  Sea-Power,  52. 

Raour,  boundary,  227. 

Rapide  Plat  Canal,  navigation,  263;  tolls  prohibited,  264, 

Red  River.      (Asia).     See  Songkoi,  366. 

Red  River    (United  States),  fisheries,  281;  navigation,  280. 

Red  River  of  the  North,  navigation  of,  280. 

Registry,  Ship,  Law  of,  139,  147;  American  Institute  of  International  Law 

on,    147,    148;    British,    141-42;    French,    142-44; 

German,   146;   Japanese,   144-45;  Norwegian,   145- 

46;   United  States,   140-41. 
Rex  vs.  Hampden,  case  of,  82. 

Rhine,  boundary,    228-30;    commission    of    supervision,    228,    229,    231-35, 
237,  238;  economic  importance  of,  160;  ferry  service  on,  233,  235; 


INDEX  417 

Rhine   (Continued)  : 

fisheries,  228,  234,  236,  237;   improvement  of,  channel,  168;    inva- 
sion of,  by  Northmen,  22;   navigable,  extent  of,  161,  165;   naviga- 
tion, 227-238;  obstructions  forbidden,  232,  235;  ocean-going  vessels 
on,  158,  159;  tolls,  153:  prohibited,  228,  231,  232,  234,  236;  trade 
route  on,  in  Middle  Ages,  152. 
Rhine-Rhone  Canal,  commission  of  supervision,  238;  navigation,  238. 
Rhine-Scheldt  Connecting  Waterways,  fisheries,  239;  navigation,'  238,'  239; 
^,  .      „  obstructions   forbidden,  239. 

Rhine-Sea  Service,  158. 
Rhine- Weser  Canal,  navigation  of,  239. 
Rhodes,  Maritime  Law  of,  30,  31,  37,  39. 
Rhone,  boundary,  239,  240;  fisheries,  240;  navigation,  239. 
Richard  I,  King  of  England,  interest  of,  in  Laws  of  Oleron,  36. 
Rideau  Canal,  navigation,  263;  tolls  prohibited,  264. 
Rio  Bravo.     See  Rio  Grande,  281. 
Rio  de  la  Plata.     See  Plata,  314. 

Rio  Grande,  boundary,  281,  282;  commission  of  supervision,  281;  diversion 
of  waters,  282;   navigation,  281;   obstructions  forbidden    281 
282. 
Rio  Grande.     See  Vermejo,  321. 
Rio  Grande  de  San  Pedro.     See  San  Pedro,  318. 
Rio  Grande  del  Norte.     See  Rio  Grande,  281. 
Rio  Hondo.     See  Hondo,  270. 
Rio  Roxo  de  Nacogdoches.     See  Red  River,  280. 
Rivers.     See  Individual  Names. 
Roeskilde,  Treaty  of,  closure  of  Baltic  by,  92. 
Rolls  of  Oleron.     See  Laws  of  Oleron. 
Rome,  Imperial  Expansion  of,  32;  Maritime  Law  of,  31;  strategic  site  of 

15. 
Roman  Law,  31;  continuous  observance  of,  33;   provisions  of,  as  to  Free- 
dom of  Seas,  104. 
Roman  River.     See  Aguan,  260. 
Rovuma,  boundary,  345. 
Rudolph  Lake,  boundary,  345. 
Ruera.     See  Pungwe,  344. 
Rule  of  war  (1756),  Trade  Restrictions  by,  83. 
Ruo,  boundary,  345,  346. 

Rusizi,  commission  of  supervision,  346;  navigation,  346. 
Russia,  access  of,  to  Mediterranean,  11;  claims  of,' to  Marginal  Sea,  129; 

territorial  acquisitions  of,  10. 
Russo-Japanese  War   (1903),  innovations  during,  in  Naval  Warfare,  136. 

SAAL,  boundary,  240;  diversion  of  waters,  241;  fisheries,  241;  navigation, 

Sabi,  navigation  of,  346. 

Sabine,  fisheries,  282;  navigation,  282. 

Sacchi,  boundary,  346. 

St.  Andrew's  Canal,  navigation,  263;  tolls  prohibited,  264. 

St.  Clair  Flats  Canal,  boundary,  262,  263;  commission  of  supervision,  270; 
diversion  of  waters,  263;  fisheries,  263,  270;  naviga- 
tion, 262,  263;   War-Vessels  restricted,  270. 


418  INDEX 

„,    p,,   .    -J.    ,      "~|     boundary,  283;    commission  of  supervision,   270;    diver- 

o!'  ^,   -^  ^       '   I  sion  of  waters,  263 ;  fisheries,  283 ;  navigation,  283,  War- 
St.  Clair  River,!    ^j       ,  4.  ■  \  a    opo  -ta 

'J     Vessels  restricted,  269-70. 

St.    Croix,   boundary,   284;    commission   of    supervision,    263;    diversion   of 
waters,  263;  fisheries,  284;  navigation,  283,  284. 

St.  Francis,  boundary,  284;   commission  of  supervision,  263;   diversion  of 
waters,  263;  fisheries,  263;  navigation,  284. 

St.  John,  boundary,  284,  285;  commission  of  supervision,  263;  diversion  of 
waters,  263;  fisheries,  285;  navigation,  285,  286;  tolls  prohibited, 
285. 

St.  Lawrence,  boundary,  286;  commission  of  supervision,  263;  diversion  of 
waters,  263,  287;  fisheries,  287-88;  navigation,  286,  287, 
288;  obstructions  forbidden,  287;  tolls  prohibited,  286. 

St.  Mary's  Canal.     See  Canals:     Sault  Sainte  Marie,  263. 
Q!+    T\T       '    T    V    1     boundary,  288 ;   commission  of  supervision,  263 ;   diver- 
bt.  Mary  s  Lake,  1     ^j^^^   of  \vaters,   263;    fisheries,   288;    navigation,  288; 
St.  Mary  s  River^l   War-Vessels  restricted,  269-70. 

St.  Mary's   (Florida),  boundary,  288,  289. 

St.    Mary's     (Montana) ,    commission    of    supervision,    274;    diversion    of 
waters,  274. 

St.  Ours  Canal    (Lock),  navigation,  263;  tolls  prohibited,  264. 

St.  Peter's  Canal,  navigation,  263;  tolls  prohibited,  264. 

St.  Petersburg,  Treaty  of,  126. 

Saisaginaga,  boundary,  262,  263;  commission  of  supervision,  263;  diver- 
sion of  waters,  263;   lisheries,  263;  navigation,  262,  263. 

Salado,  navigation,  296. 

Salamis,  Grecian  Vistory  at,  18,  55. 

Salza,  boundary,  241;  navigation,  241. 

Sama,  boundary,  317. 

Sambre,  boundary,  242;  navigation,  241. 

San,  navigation  of,  242. 

San-fa,  navigation  of,  366. 

San  Francisco,  navigation  of,  169,  318. 

Sanga,  commission  of  supervision,  346;  navigation,  346. 

San  Gonzalo,  navigation  of,  318. 

San  Juan,  boundary,  289,  290;  navigation,  289. 

San  Miguel.     See  Colombian  Waterways:     Aguarico,  299. 

San  Pedro,  navigation  of,  318. 

Santa  Cruz,  navigation  of,  296. 

Santiago,  navigation  of,  312. 

Santiago,  navigation  of,  270-71.     See  Honduras:      Ulua. 

Saratsika,  boundary,  242. 

Sarre  Canal,  navigation  of,  242,  243. 

Sarre  River,  boundary,  242;  fisheries,  242;  navigation,  242. 

Sauces.     Bee  Argentine  Waterways:     JS'egro,  296. 

Sault  Sainte  Marie  Canal,  navigation,  203;  tolls  prohibited,  264. 

Save  (Africa).     See  Sabi,  346. 

Save   (Europe),  fisheries,  243;  navigation,  243. 

Sbrucz,  navigation  of,  224.     See  Polish  Waterways. 

Schara,  navigation  of,  224. 

Scheldt,  boundary,  244;   fisheries,  245;   navigation,   153-155,  243-248;   ob- 
structions forbidden,  245;   tolls  prohibited,  246,  247. 


INDEX  419 

Scheschupa,  navigation  of,  224. 

Schwalb,  boundary,  249. 

Schwarze-Elster,  boundary,  249;  navigation,  249. 

Scutari  Lake,  navigation  "of ,  249. 

Sea,  The  Open,  appropriations  of,  .53,  59,  103;   Freedom  of,  6,  28,  53,  103; 

intercommunication  by,  3,  5,  6,  16. 
Sea-Codes.  )     „      t         ^t     -x- 
Sea-Laws.    \    ^'^^  Law,  Maritime. 

Sea- Power,  dominant,  secured  by  England,  91;  employment  of,  during 
peace,  109;  during  war,  109;  French,  destroyed  by  the  Seven 
Years'  War,  90;  genesis  of,  51;  necessity  of,  108;  Neutral 
Rights  and,  134;  retention  of,  by  Great  Britain,  108;  Roman, 
20. 
Sea-Trade,  benefits  of,  167;  Dutch,  jeopardized,  85,  S5  n. 

Seamen,  impressment  of,  119. 

Segovia.     See  Coco,  266,  271. 

Selden,   Sir  John,   definition  by,  of  Four  Seas,  73;    on  extent  of  English 
IMaritime  Dominion,  81;  on  Mare  Clausum,  80,  98. 

Selenga,  navigation  of,  366. 

Semliki,  diversion  of  waters,  346,  347. 

Semoy,  boundary,  249;  navigation,  249. 

Sereth,  navigation  of,  224. 

Setit,  boundary,  347. 

Seven  Years'  War,  90-91. 

Shari,  boundary,  347;  navigation,  347. 

Shat-el-Arab,  navigation  of,  366. 

Shavoe,  boundary,  347. 

Ship  Money,  case  of,  82. 

Shire,  boundary,  348;  navigation,  347,  348. 

Shirwa  Lake.     See  Chilwa  Lake,  328. 

Siang-kiang,  navigation,  366;  tolls  prohibited,  357-58. 

Sibim.     See  Belize,  261. 

Sicily,  conquest  of,  by  Northmen,  22. 

Si-kiang.     See  West  River,  369,  370. 

Slave  Trade,  detection  of,  by  search,  113,  120. 

Sobat,  diversion  of  waters,  348. 

Sogamoso,  navigation  of,  299. 

Sokoto,  navigation  of,  348. 

Song-ki-kong,  navigation  of,  366;  tolls  prohibited,  357. 

Songkoi,  navigation  of,  366,  367. 

SongAve,  boundary,  348,  349. 

Soulanges,  navigation,  263;  tolls  prohibited,  264. 

Sound  Dues,  Danish,   120;    abolition  of,   93,   121;    Queen  Elizabeth   seeks 

modification  of,  94. 
South  America,  Inland  Waterways  of,  292;   vital  service  of,  162-63. 
Sovereignty  of  the  Seas,  claims  to,  58,  76,  101,  105. 
Spain,  Rights  secured  to,  by  Papal  Bull,  65. 
Spanish  Succession,  War  of,  90. 
Spree,  boundary,  249. 
Squincio  Lake,  boundary,  249. 
Stade  Toll,  imposition  of,  203,  204. 
Stecknitz  Canal,  navigation,  250;  obstructions  forbidden,  250. 


420  INDEX 

Stefanie  Lake,  boundary,  349. 

Stikine,  boundary,  290;  navigation,  290-91. 

Stowell,  Lord,  on  Visit  and  Search  during  peace,  120, 

Strategic  Areas,  maritime,  133,  136. 

Styr,  boundary,  250. 

Submarine  War-Vessels,  use  of,  137. 

Sulaco,  navigation  of,  270-71.     See  Honduras:     TJlua. 

Sungari,  boundary,  367;  navigation,  367. 

Superior  Lake,  boundary,  291;   commission  of  supervision,  263;   diversion 

of  waters,  263;   fisheries,  263;  navigation,  291. 
Sure,  boundary,  250. 

Surinam,  cession  of,  to  Netherlands,  87. 
Switzerland,  importance  of  fluvial  navigation  to,  166,  168. 

TAGLiATA,  boundary,  250. 
Tagus,  navigation  of,  250. 
Takutu,  boundary,  318;  navigation,  318. 
Tana,  boundary,  349. 

Tanganyika  Lake,  boundary,  349;  commission  of  supervision,  349;  naviga- 
tion, 349,  350;  tolls  prohibited,  349. 
Tanoe  Lagoon.     See  Tendo  Lagoon,  350. 
Tanoe  River.     See  Tendo  River,  350. 
Tapajoz,  navigation  of,  318,  319. 
Tartares,  diversion  of  waters,  250. 
Tatsich.     See  Yung-kiang,  357,  374. 
Tembe-Counda,  navigation  of,  341.     See  Niger. 
Tendo  Lagoon,  navigation  of,  350. 

Tendo  River,  boundary,  350;  dredging  for  gold,  350;   fisheries,  350;   navi- 
gation, 350. 
Terneuzen  Canal,  boundary,  251;   navigation,  251,  252;   obstructions  pro- 
hibited, 251. 
Territorial  Waters,  extent  of,  94,  107,  117,  124;  seizure  beyond,  of  vessels, 

126. 
Teterew,  navigation  of,  224. 
Texel,  Sea-Fight  off  the,  87. 
Thames,  invasion  of,  by  Dutch  fleet,  87. 
Themistocles,  naval  policy  of,  18. 
Ticino,  boundary,  252;  navigation,  252. 
Tiel,  boundary,  350;  fisheries,  350;  navigation,  350. 
Tigre,  navigation  of,  300,  312. 
Tigris,  navigation,  368;  trade-route,  53. 
Tinto.     See  Negro,  277. 
Tocantins,  navigation  of,  169,  319. 
Tolls,  fluvial,  152. 

Tolls,  Prohibition  or  Regulation  of, 
on  the: 

Adige,   180;  Cao-Bang,  357; 

Black  River   Canal,  264;  Chambly  Canal,  263; 

Borneo  Waterways,  354;  Champlain  Canal,  264; 

Canals  of  Canada  and  the  United    Chinese  Inland  Waterways,  358; 
States,  263-64;  Cornwall  Canal,  263; 

Canton,  357;  Cross,  330; 


421 


Tolls,  Prohibition  or  Regulation  of   (Contirmed) 
on  the: 


Elbe,  202-205; 

Erie  Barge  Canal,  264; 

Farran's  Point  Canal,  263; 

Fly  River    {New  Ouinea) ,  358; 

Galops  Canal,  263; 

Grand  Canal,  358; 

Grand  Lake  of  Cambodia,  359; 

Han-kiang,  358; 

Hoang-ho,  358; 

Hun-ho    {Liao-ho  System),  358; 

Hun-ho   {Pai-ho  System),  358; 

Hwai-ho,  358; 

Lachine  Canal,  263; 

Liao-ho,  358; 

Lwan-ho,  358; 

Lys,  213; 

Main,  215; 

Meuse,  217,  218; 

Min-kiang,  358; 

Mississippi,  274; 

Murray  Canal,  263; 

Neckar,  220-21; 

Netze,  221; 

Niemen,  221; 

Oswego  Canal,  264; 

Ottawa  Canal,  263; 

Pai-ho,  358; 

Paraguay,  306; 

Parana,  311 ; 

Pei-kiang,  358; 

Po-Yang-Lu  Lake,  358; 

Rapide  Plat  Canal,  263; 
Tolls,  Rhine,  153. 
Tonke.     See  Kubango,  334. 
Tordesillas,    Treaty    of,    modifies    Demarcation    Line,    67;    receives    Papal 

Sanction,  68. 
Tornea,  boundary,  252;  fisheries,  252;  navigation,  252. 
Tort,  diversion  of  waters,  252. 
Trade- Routes,  Mediterranean  and  Far  East,  17. 
Trafalgar,  English  victory  at,  91. 
Trani,  Ordinances  of,  33. 

Transportation,  co-relation  of  Railway  and  Waterway,  159,   160;   depend- 
ence on,  of  society,  8. 
Trave,  fisheries,  253;   navigation,  253;   obstructions  prohibited,  253. 
Trent  Canal,  navigation,  263 ;  tolls  prohibited,  263,  264. 
Tresa,  boundary,  253;   fisheries,  253. 
Tromp,  Admiral,  86,  87. 
Tsana  Lake,  diversion  of  waters,  350. 
Tsien-Tang,  navigation,  368;   tolls  forbidden,  358. 
Tso-kiang,  navigation,  368;  tolls  forbidden,  358. 


Rhine,  228,  231,  232,  234,  236; 

Rideau  Canal,  263; 

St.  Andrew's  Canal,  263; 

St.  John,  285 ; 

St.  Lawrence,  263; 

St.  Ours  Canal   (Lock),  263; 

St.  Peter's  Canal,  263 ; 

Sault  Sainte  Marie  Canal,  263; 

Scheldt,  246,  247; 

Siang-kiang,  358; 

Song-ki-kong,  358; 

Soulanges  Canal,  263 ; 

Tanganyika  Lake,  349; 

Trent  Canal,  263; 

Tsien-tang,  358; 

Tso-kiang,  358; 

Tumen,  358; 

Tung-kiang,  358; 

Tung-Ting-Lu  Lake,  358; 

Vistula,  254; 

Warthe,  255; 

Welland  Canal,  263; 

Weser,  257; 

West,  358; 

Whangpoo,  358; 

Williamsburg  Canal,  263; 

Wu-kiang,  358; 

Yalu,  358; 

Yang-tsze-kiang,  358; 

Yssel,  258; 

Yung-kiang,  358. 


422  INDEX 

Tumba  Lake,  commission  of  supervision,  350;  navigation,  350. 
Tumen,  boundary,  368;  navigation,  368;  tolls  prohibited,  358. 
Tung-kiang,  navigation,  368;  tolls  prohibited,  358. 
Tung-Ting-Lu  Lake,  navigation,  369;   tolls  forbidden,  358. 
Twiss,  Sir  Travers,  on  Laws  of  Oleron,  36. 
Two  Sicilies,  Kingdom  of  the,  established,  22. 
Tyrrhenian  Sea,  57. 
Tzaisan-Nor  Lake.     See  Zatsan  Lake,  375. 

UAPES.     See  Colombian  Waterways:     'Waupes,   299. 

Ubangi,  commission  of  supervision,  351;  navigation,  351. 

Ucayali,  navigation  of,  312. 

Ugala,  commission  of  supervision,  351;  navigation,  351. 

Ukase  of  Alexander,  Emperor  of  Russia,  121. 

Ukumbi.     See  Ugala,  351. 

Ulafu   (Uldafu),  boundary,  351. 

Ulua,  navigation  of,  291. 

United  States,  claims  of,  to  extensive  bays,  129;  waterways  of,  161. 

Unstrut,  navigation  of,  253. 

Urbelcha,  boundary,  253. 

Uruguay,  navigation,  319,  320,  321;   War-Vessels  restricted,  319. 

Ussuri,  boundary,  369;  navigation,  369; 

Utamboni,  fisheries,  351;  navigation,  351.- 

Utica,  strategic  site  of,  15. 

Utrecht   (1713),  treaty  of,  90,  153. 

VALCAKLOS,  boiuidary,  253. 
Valencia  Lake,  navigation  of,  321. 
Vanera,  boundary,  253;  diversion  of  waters,  253. 

Vattel,    Emmerich,   on    Freedom   of   the   Seas,    103,    116;    on    international 
commerce,  8;   on  Mare  Clausum,  98;  on  Marginal  Sea, 
117. 
Venezuelan  Waterways,  navigation  of,  321. 
Venice,   access   secured  by,   to   Constantinople,   22;    maritime   law  of,   28; 

trade  of,  stimulated  by  Crusaders,  22. 
Vermejo,  navigation  of,  321,  322. 
Vessels,  corporate  ownership  of,  138. 
Victoria  Nyanza,  boundary,  351,  352. 
Vienna,  Congress  of,  6,  151,  155,  161. 
Visit  and  Search,  exercise  of,  during  peace,  113,  119. 

Vistiila,   boundary,    254,   255;    navigation,   224,    253,   254,   255;    tolls   pro- 
hibited, "254. 
Volta,  boundary,  352. 
Voyages  of  Discovery,  3. 

WAAL,  navigation  of,  255. 

Wallis.     See  Belize,  261. 

Wanks.     See  Coco,  266,  271. 

War,   Maritime,  innovations  of,    134,    137;    restrictions   of,   on  navigation, 

136,  149. 
Warthe    (Wartha),  boundary,  255:   navigation,  224,  255;   obstructions  for- 
bidden, 255;  tolls  prohibited,  255. 


indelx  423 

War- Vessels,  Prohibition  of  Navigation  by, 
on  the: 

Adige,  180;  Nicaragua  Lake,  278; 

Apa,  308;  Paraguay,  308; 

Aquidaban,  308;  Paraguayan  Waterways,  308; 

Fogones,   308;  Pilcomayo,  314. 

War-Vessels,  Regulation  of  Navigation  by, 
on  the : 

Caspian  Sea,  356;  Putumayo,  317; 

Danube,  189,  199;  St.  Clair  Flats  Canal,  269-70; 

Detroit,  270;  St.  Clair  Lake,  270; 

Erie  Lake,  269;  St.  Clair  River,  270; 

Huron  Lake,  269-70;  St.  Mary's  Lake,  269-70; 

Niagara,  269;  St.  Mary's  River,  270; 

Ontario  Lake,  278,  279;  Superior  Lake,  269-70; 

Plata,  316;  Uruguay,  319,  320. 

Washington,    Treaty    of     (1867),    cession    of    Alaska   by,    123;    Treaty    of 
(1892),  arbitration  of  Bering  Sea  claims  by,  124,  125;  Treaty 
of    (1911),  for  protecting  fur-seals,  126. 
Water-transportation,  inherent  economies  of,  7,  8. 
Waupes,  navigation  of,  299. 

Weisse-Elster,  boundary,  256;    navigation,  255,  256. 
Welland  Canal,  navigation,  291;  tolls  prohibited,  263. 
Weser,  navigation,  256,  257 ;  tolls  prohibited,  257. 
West,  navigation,  369,  370;  tolls  prohibited,  358. 
Westlake,  John,  on  Freedom  of  the  Seas,   111;    on  Maritime  Occupation, 

112;  on  Venetian  appropriation  of  Adriatic,  60. 
Westminster,  Treaty  of   (1674),  89. 
Westphalia,  Peace  of,  restricts  Rhine  traffic,  152;   restricts  Scheldt  traffic, 

153. 
Whangpoo,  navigation,  370,  371,  372;  tolls  prohibited,  358. 
Whitehall  Canal.     See  Canals:     Champlain,  263-64. 
Wilija,  navigation  of,  224. 

Williamsburg  Canal,  navigation,  263;  tolls  prohibited,  264. 
Wilson,  Woodrow,  on   Freedom  of  the  Seas,   170;    on  necessity  of  Inland 

Navigation,  170. 
Windau  Canal,  navigation  of,  224. 
Windau  River,  navigation  of,  224. 
Wisbuy,  Laws  of,  25,  39,  40. 
Wjeprsh,  navigation  of,  224. 

Worn,  boundary,  352;  fisheries,  352;  navigation,  352. 
Woosung.     See  Whangpoo,  370. 
Woriema.     See  Jacobs-Elf,  210. 
Worms,  boundary,  257,  258. 
Wu-kiang,  navigation,  372;  tolls  prohibited,  358. 

XERXES,  defeat  of,  at  Salamis,  18. 

TACARANA.     See  Peruvian  Waterways:     Yavari,  312. 

Yaguaron.     See  Jaguary,  301. 

Yalpouk,  boundary,  258. 

Yalu,  navigation,  372-73;  tolls  prohibited,  358. 


424  INDEX 

Yang-tsze-kiang,  navigation,  373,  374;  tolls  prohibited,  358. 

Yapura,  navigation  of,  322. 

Yavari,  navigation  of,  312. 

Yederam,  boundary,  352;  fisheries,  352;  navigation,  352. 

Yenisei,  navigation  of,  374. 

Yoja.     See  Honduras:     Ulua,  270-71. 

Yoro.     See  Coco,  266. 

Yssel,  boundary,  258;  navigation,  258;  tolls  forbidden,  258. 

Yukon,  navigation  of,  292. 

Yung-kiang,  navigation,  374,  375;  tolls  prohibited,  358. 

ZAMBESI,  boundary,  353;  navigation,  352,  353. 
Zatsan  Lake,  375. 
Zborowski,  boundary,  258. 
Zbrucz.     See  Podhorce,  224. 

Zuid-Willems-Waart,  diversion  of  waters,  259;   navigation,  258,  259;   ob- 
structions prohibited,  259. 
Zwin  Canal,  boundary,  260;  navigation,  259,  260. 


FEINTED   IN    THE    UNITED   STATES   OF   AMEBJCA 


VITA 


PAUL  MORGAN  OGILVIE:  Born  in  Los  Angeles  Cal- 
ifornia, 1885;  attended  private  and  public  preparatory  schools 
in  Los  Angeles  and  :N'ew  York  City,  1895,  1899-1905,  1907; 
studied  in  Europe,  attending  lectures  at  the  Ecole  Libre  des 
Sciences  Politiques  and  at  the  Sorbonne,  1906,  1911-1912, 
1914;  A.B.,  Columbia  College,  1913;  M.A.,  Columbia  Uni- 
versity, 1914;  followed  graduate  courses  under  the  direction  of 
Professors  Ellery  Cory  Stowell,  Edwin  R.  A.  Selignian,  Wil- 
liam M.  Sloane,  Henry  R.  Seager,  Samuel  McC.  Lindsay, 
Howard  L.  McBain,  Henry  R.  Mussey,  William  I).  Guthrie, 
Edward  T.  Devine,  Edward  McC.  Sait  and  John  Bassett 
Moore,  while  preparing  and  completing  a  study  of  International 
Waterways,  1915-1916. 


